View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
14 June 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
QUESTION
- RECRUITING CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY
PAPERS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1918-19
- Second Reading
APPROPRIATION BILL 1917-18
- Second Reading
SPECIAL. ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5990

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Classification in Clerical Division.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– A few days ago I asked the Leader of the Senate the following questions: -

Percentage of officers in each class of the Clerical Division on the 1st January, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918.
Percentage of officers in thefourth class of each subdivision of that class during the same period?
Number of positions reclassified from one class to the next higher class each year for the same period? The reclassifications for each class to be shown separately.

The Minister’s reply wasthat inquiries were being made. I should like to know if those inquiries have been completed; and, if so, what are the answers to my questions ?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In conformity with mystatement, steps were taken to have the inquiries proceeded with. I have no doubt thatthey have been made, but, as the information has. not yet reached me, I assume that they have not been completed. I shall make further inquiries to-day, and I hope to be in a position to furnish the honorable senator with the information at a later hour.

page 5990

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister some time since for information relative to the number of hands employed in Commonwealth shipbuilding. I should like to know whether the informationis yet available?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I may read the specific questions put by Senator Keating as an indication of the nature of the replies. They were as follow: -

How many ships intended for mercantile marine service are at present in course of con struction by the Commonwealth Government inAustralia?
How many men were employed thereon on last pay-day?
How many men are now so employed?

The answers are -

Work has actually been commenced on one ship at Williamstown and one at Walsh Island. A third ship is about to be commenced at Cockatoo Island.
Last pay-day- Friday, 24th inst. - there were forty-eight men employed at Williamstown, and forty-four at Walsh Island.
The numbers employed at the present moment are fifty-one at Williamstown and fifty-six at Walsh Island.

I may add that these replies are about a week old, and in the interval the numbers have increased, and are steadily increasing.

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that the forty-four men supposed to be employed in shipbuilding at Walsh Island are employed only on preparatory work, and that there is not one mechanic or one machine at work at Walsh Island on practical shipbuilding?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am unable to answer the question.

page 5990

QUESTION

RECRUITING CONFERENCE

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– In view of the suggestion contained in . the honorable senator’s question, I shall put the matter before the Acting Prime Minister. I have no doubt that steps will be taken to give effect to the honorable senator’s wishes.

page 5990

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Personnel of Staff

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some time ago the Senate agreed to a motion calling for a return of names, salaries, and other particulars of the staff of the Repatriation Department. Will the Minister for Repatriation say whether the information has been obtained; and, if so, when we may expect to get it?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The information sought by the honorable senator necessitated communications with all the States. I assume that the return is being completed. I shall make inquiry during the day, and inform the honorable senator of the result later.

page 5991

QUESTION

RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether he has noticed, in connexion with the various reports of the depredations of the German cruiser Wolf, a statement that when an Australian woman and children with other captives were on the Spanish collier Izotz Mendi, the chief officer of the Spanish vessel, Senor Soseata, apprehending that the Germans were about to blow the vessel up with the woman and children on board, went into the chart-room very gallantly and at very great personal risk to himself, and, notwithstanding the presence of the Germans, threw the bombs overboard.Does the Minister not think that it would be a grateful act for the Commonwealth Government to communicate through the Spanish Consul with the Spanish Government their appreciation of an act so compatible with that chivalry which the whole world attributes to the best side of the Spanish character?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I shall place the suggestion before the Acting Prime Minster. I am not aware that any information other than that contained in the newspaper paragraph has yet been re- ceived regarding the incident referred to.

page 5991

PAPERS

The following papers . were pre- s ented : -

Customs Act 1901-1916-

Proclamation, dated 5th June, 1918. prohibiting exportation (except under cortain conditions) of Butter, Cheese, Cream, Concentrated Milk. Condensed Milk, Condensed Skim Milk, or Dried Milk; also revoking previous proclamation (Dated 13th February,1918).

Proclamations prohibiting exportation (except under certain conditions) of -

Bicarbonate of Soda (Dated 5th June, 1918).

Salt (Dated 29th May, 1918).

Trading with the Enemy Act 1914-1916.-

Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1918, No. 153.

page 5991

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1918-19

Price Fixing : Meat : Action of Queenslandgovernment : secondhand Bags : Building Material - Meat Production andWater Conservation - War-time Profits Taxation - Mr. Critchley Parker and the “ Mining Standard “ - Adjournments of Parliament : Ministerial Duties - The War : Loyalty of Labour Party : Military Situation : “ Peace by Negotiation “ : Peace Terms : Captured German Possessions : “Hands off the Pacific” Policy: Australia’s Contribution and Fighting Record - Recruiting Conference and Obstacles to Recruiting : Fulfilment of Government Pledges: Return of Enlistments - Unlawful Associations Act: Detention of Offenders - Internment of Aliens - Shipbuilding - Invalid and Old-age Pensions - Defence Administration : Preference to Unionists: Hours of Clerical Staff at Fremantle - Australian Imperial Force : Enlistments for Special Service: Sergeants-Major and Active Service Rank : Soldiers’ Wives Abroad:Notification of Return of Soldiers - War Pensions : Mothers of Deceased Soldiers - Commonwealth Police: Attendance on Prime Minister - Ministerial Representation in London - Unimproved Value of Orchard Lands - Wheat Pool and Wheat Production -Northern Territory : Administration and Development : Railway Construction - Postal Department : Country Facilities : Proposed Training Institutes : Method of Entrance to Service and Promotion : Letter-carriers and Bicycles - Public Service Act”: Need for Amendment : Furlough - EastWest Railway : Break of Gauge - Refusal of Employment to Wharf Labourers - Victimization ofMember of Citizen Forces - SelectCommittee on Intoxicants.

Debate resumed from 13th June (vide page 5989), on motion by Senator Millen -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

. -When the Senate last night kindly gave me permision to resume my remarks this morning, I was pursuing the fascinating will-o’-the-wisp of price-fixing..

– It is my intention to strengthen it, because I believe it is a fact.

The policy of the Government, as very properly expressed, has been to encourage production; and I wish to refer to the paralyzing effects of a measure which we, unfortunately, were contributory parties to enacting. That is the war-time profits tax. As no one can tell what the return from that tax will be, I am not going to deny that it may be possible to extract from the pockets of the people of Australia anything from £500,000 up to £2,000,000 for one year per medium of the tax; but I assert that it will be done, possibly, at the loss of tens of millions of pounds in connexion with the. operations and the enterprises of the people, of Australia. The Act is exercising a paralyzing influence in every direction. What capitalist will start an industry at the present time, with a measure on the statute-book that will enable the Government to take from him 50 to 75 per cent, of the profits that he makes, irrespective of the fact that those profits may not be due to war conditions at all? The logic of the position is demonstrable to the most insufficient intelligence. The thing is a brake upon enterprise. It is of no use to argue that, because they have a measure of that description in the Home Country, we should have a similar measure here. I could use the Home Country as an illustration in connexion with the fixation of the prices of meat, hy quoting an article in the Spectator, which states that the price of pork has been sensibly affected through cottagers refusing to continue pig-breeding because of price fixing.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– It is because of the difficulty of getting food for the pigs.

Senator BAKHAP:

– That may be a contributory factor, arid so may certain municipal regulations, but price fixing is stated to have had the effect I mention. Because they have long-established industries in the Home country, the profits *f which have been inflated by commercial operations during the war period, .and because the war-time profits tax may be a necessary measure there, it does not follow that in a country like Australia, where there are all sorts of nascent industries, and industries yet to be born, “we should have a measure of the same kind on the statute-book. Although we may for a year or two, by means of this pernicious enactment, extract a couple of million pounds from the pockets of the people of Australia, its influence is paralyzing and strangling upon all those energies which we should be employing in the development and encouragement of the industries of our country.

I have very reluctantly to refer to a personal matter, to which circumstances compel me to make allusion. Matters that are purely personal are of little account in a time like the present; but a matter may have a personal and also a great national aspect. It may be important from the stand-point of honorable senators individually, and also from the stand-point of honorable senators collectively as a legislative body. Fourteen or fifteen months ago there was a political crisis or political situation in this country, resulting in an election. There were some proceedings at the time which appeared very strange to certain of the electors, arid to me as a senator. I stated then that I charged nobody with improper conduct, nor do I make any such charge now. It is not my natural habit to conden.n people on insufficient evidence; in fact, I never make a charge against anybody unless I think I have a sufficiency of evidence, and, even then, my natural inclination of mind is to allow things to pass, because, after all, none of us is perfect. Having in view the fact that I helped to represent a small State, and that this Chamber is one whose status is very valuable to the people inhabiting those States in which the population is not numerically great, it struck me that it would be very unwise, in the atmosphere that then existed, to prolong the life of the Parliament In that event, the result, had it been so prolonged as was contemplated by a certain resolution t would have been eminently unsatisfactory. The life of the Parliament was not prolonged. I made certain statements of my attitude and of my troublings of mind about the situation, iri a way that I considered was justified, and I thought nothing more was necessary. The election transpired, and I was justified in the. event; for, after all, we now have a party with a majority in both Chambers that has the power, and, I believe, to a large extent the will, to enact useful legislation. I am not going to constitute myself the black-tracker of politics. So long as the status of the Senate, to which I deem it an honour to have been sent by the. people of Tasmania, is unimpaired - and I do not think any action or utterance of mine has impaired its status iri the minds of the Australian people - I shall be satisfied. The historian of the future can unravel any political tangle in any manner that he deems desirable. As for me, I reserve my opinions for my own consumption, and T only allow them to govern my actions to. the extent that I deem to be necessary. Such has been my attitude in the past, and such is my attitude at the present time. But something has transpired out of the action which I deemed necessary to take, the consequences of which affect every public man. Now my motives were governed solely by my consideration for the status of this Chamber, and I venture to say that, in this chamber, there will always be found men determined to see that the rights of the Australian people in regard to legislative action are properly maintained. But a certain gentleman who has loomed much too largely in the life of Australia during the last two or three years, deemed it desirable to libel me in a very strange publication, of which he was practically the sole proprietor, and, perhaps the editor at the time. He stated that my action during the political crisis referred to was governed by some sectarian motive - by some disloyal feeling towards the British Empire. My loyalty to the

Empire is not likely to be questioned by anybody whose opinion I value, for all my family on the maternal side fought for the Empire long before the present war, and I may say that my mother’s family for the last 150 years has given soldiers to the British Empire. No traitor has ever been ‘discovered among them, and if the British Empire is not betrayed until I turn traitor, The Traitor’s Gate will never be opened.

Rightly or wrongly, there seems to have been some association between the gentleman to whom I refer and the Government. I do not say the connexion has been an improper one, but it has been deemed suspicious by a very large section of the people, and, apart from the fact that he libelled me, 1 venture to say that the connexion has not been at all conducive to good feeling in the community. The Government seem to have employed him on occasions to do a considerable amount of printing work, the accounts for which run into hundreds of pounds, and the other night when the Supply Bill was under consideration, I noticed an item for payment to this gentleman for services rendered to the’ Prime Minister’s Department, presumably in connexion with printing. For the moment, T intended to say then what I am about to say now, but I let the occasion pass because I thought that, as no doubt the work had been satisfactorily performed, there was no reason why payment should be prejudiced, even though the man had constituted himself my political enemy.

The application of my remarks will be to show the necessity for a Commonwealth company law, which will make impossible proceedings such as I am about to mention. I know public men must be subject to criticism, so I was reluctant to take action in the matter, but I was accused of being a traitor to m’y country in time of war. and that was an unendurable affront, of which I was bound to take notice, particularly as the gentleman who made the charge was the proprietor, and, presumably, the editor of a not obscure publication. I refer to the Australian Mining Standard, which has been before the mining public of Australia for a quarter of a century, and J may remark that I have had the doubtful honour of seeing articles of mine on mining matters, published originally in the Tasmanian press, appearing in the journal referred to without my knowledge or consent. About the year 1915, this gentleman, for reasons of his own, tacked on a publication called the Statesman te the Mining Standard, and this journal, which, as a mining paper, seemed to have been conducted very well, then became a political organ with a very pronounced bias against a certain section of the community. Long before the political crisis to which I made reference, I noticed one day, in Collinsstreet, a large illustrated placard which propounded a sort of conundrum, but which, upon looking at it closely, I could see was designed in a spirit of hostility to a certain section of the Australian people, and if it had not been that my attitude might have been construed as one of ill-will, I would certainly have brought the matter under the notice of the Minister for Defence. But let thatpass. My religion is a simple one. If a man is a decent fellow, I care very little what religion he professes, and as for sectarian views, I can hardly understand then,. because, after all, the future life and the problems attached to it, constitute a matter of incertitude. These things are clear only to eyes which employ the lens of faith. In all probability had my mother been a Turkish woman, I would have been a Mohammedan at the present time, and so 1 do not hold any man’s religion as anything to his credit or anything that may be quoted in his favour. Religion is a subject that I speak of very rarely. I do not think I excel in the practice of it, and, that being so, it is not for me to make any public professions. Such religion as I have been taught and brought uo in, I will nominally profess while I live, and other men may do what they like. But I strongly protest against being criticised on the ground of the religion that I profess, and strongly object to being classed as a betrayer of my country, when I am veryconscious of being something very far from that. In 1915, this gentleman incorporated the Statesman with the Mining Standard, and, as I have already said, the career of the Statesman, may be construed as one long attack upon persons in this community belonging to a certain religious denomination. Whatever the motives may have been, that was the actual result. The point is that a man professing to be a journalist, and acting in the interests of the Empire, was able> to indulge per medium of the Victorian company legislation in practices which are deplorable and contemptible.

In September, 1915, this gentleman, Mr. Critchley Parker, with some desire, I suppose, to mask the real proprietorship of the publication which he contemplated issuing with what, I believe, was inimical intent, formed a company called the Australian Statesman and Mining Standard Ltd., and transferred to it the whole of the copyright, the advertising blocks, illustrations, good-will, &c, but not the plant or machinery of the Mining Standard. He and his wife were practically the only shareholders in the concern. If I. have occasion to refer to the fact that Mrs. Parker was the only other shareholder in connexion with this Protean notation, I want to say that I make no invidious reference to the lady in question. She is unknown to me. She is the wife of her husband, and I regard it as a good principle to hold in respect, marital obedience and co-operation of a wife with her husband within the range of the law. I will simply refer to the fact that she appeared with her husband as a shareholder and director of this company, which has assumed two or three different shapes. TheA ustralian Statesman and Mining Standard continued its activities until within a few days for the time set down for the hearing, in Hobart, of a libel action which I had instituted. In regard to this matter, I will say of the press of Australia that the great metropolitan journals, and a good substantial number of the country press, always stand their ground. If, in criticising a man, they get over the fence, well, they are there to be shot at, and are prepared to abide the hazard of the die, because the law is, to a certain extent, a lottery. Now this man charged me, as well as Senator Keating, with betraying my country at the bidding of a Roman Catholic cleric.

Senator Guy:

– He anticipated the results of it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Quite so. He at once caused his bogus company to assume another shape - re-transferring to himself the property represented in the journal referred to. Inquiries in the RegistrarGeneral’s office in Melbourne showed that only he and his wife were at any time shareholders in the concern.

Senator Keating:

– There was another shareholder. Critchley Parker Limited have all the shares but two. The wife had one ; Critchley Parker had another, and Critchley Parker Limited had all the rest.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The whole business is Critchley Parker himself, who seems to me to be a dangerous fanatic, and ought to be ‘in bedlam. He is a dangerous and a vicious fanatic. This company existed only on paper. It had no assets. It was brought into being as a mask to protect Critchley Parker in his campaign of vilification, conducted through the instrumentality of the Statesman against a large number of the Australian people. There are cranks who believe that Prussia - that is to say, the German nation - the greatest Protestant Power in the world, is out to restore the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, and that it is the Pope who is the moving instrument behind the whole dreadful conflict. How utterly ridiculous and impossible! Do we not find Mohammedans fighting for the British against fellow Mohammedans - the Turks? We have Mohammedans fighting against their Mohammedan Khalif - which is to say, in effect, their Pope. Altogether, the whole religious element is tremendously involved on both sides, and there is not. the faintest trace of religious causes being at the back of the war. Practically every religious sect, with the probable single exception of the Quakers, is actively engaged on both sides ; and any man who discovers a religious motive in the world war, and insists that any one religious body is the mainspring of it all, is no better than a dangerous lunatic. He deserves to be placed alongside of the Germans themselves, and to suffer a common fate with them.

The effect of this libel action has been that a jury of my countrymen, differing from me very largely, no doubt, in religious views and in regard to political principles - and upon which jury the denomination to which I belong probably had not a single representative - gave to my colleague and myself a verdict each of £450 damages, with costs. That completely vindicated us if such vindication were necessary in the eyes of the people who had sent us into the Australian Senate. I pay tribute to the spirit of justice animating British institutions when I state that at any time, in regard to my public and private actions, I shall have no hesitation in submitting myself to the closest investigation at the hands of a jury of fellow-citizens, no matter what their religious or political professions may be. I should, perhaps, make an exception, however, with respect to just a few really dangerous fanatics.

Did this gentleman - and I place a verbal «note of interrogation ‘after the word - show himself a man and a sport? Did he appear in Hobart? No. There was no representative of his alleged company there - at which time, by the way, it had gone into liquidation ; and as to that I was apprised of the position by some anonymous correspondent forwarding me newspaper cuttings through the post. There was no representative of Critchley Parker - no witness, no director, no editor, no leader-writer, no proprietor. But this company, which was then in liquidation, was represented by one of the most eminent counsel practising in the Australian Courts. I have nothing against this gentleman, who, no doubt, did his duty; but I take it that he was instructed to endeavour to win his case on behalf of Critchley Parker -by means of a. rather venomous but undoubtedly able appeal to that sectarian atmosphere which he quite wrongly believed to exist in the island State. No man who appeals to a Tasmanian jury in the hope of arousing ill-feeling by medium of religious principles may ever hope to get much change out of the transaction. Such methods would give him no lien upon the jury’s verdict.

The jury gave my colleague and myself substantial verdicts. I may say that we had to take our action to vindicate ourselves and the Australian Senate; because, if we had been afraid to go into the witness-box and subject ourselves to cross-examination at the hands of able counsel, it would have been said by our enemies that we feared to face the ordeal. Does any one believe that counsel was- not paid ; that the company, which was in liquidation and had no assets, was unable to hand him his fees? I venture to say he got his money. I was surprised, however, that a firm of lawyers of professedly good standing in Melbourne associated themselves - I speak of the solicitors and not of the counsel - with Critchley Parker in connexion with his manipulations and twistings and turnings under the sinister protecting shadow of the company law of Victoria. It has all produced one rather humorous result for me. Many people, anticipating that I had received the sum indicated by the verdict, looked upon myself as having drawn a fairly good prize in Tattersalls. Numerous requests, based upon the assumption that I had secured the sum of the jury’s award, were sent to me through the post. I have not received the money ; but I have a rod in pickle for this same gentleman before I am finished with him. My reason for alluding to the matter at all is that it has an aspect worthy of the consideration of honorable senators and the public. It is this : The company which we sued has disappeared. Another company has been constituted under the title of The Australian Statesman and Mining Standard Ltd. It is the same name as the defunct company. The people to whom its alleged assets have been transferred are still Mr. and Mrs. Parker; but the paper is not published as The Australian, Statesman and Mining Standard. Apparently, these people have become rather ashamed, or they desire to indulge in a little more camouflage. This organ is now published as the Australian Mining and Industrial Record, but it is not registered as such.

No public man should be resentful of criticism, unless it is altogether unfair and far-reaching in its inaccuracies. It is well that the public and press should have comprehensive freedom of criticism under the law of the land; but no newspaper should be given privileges that an individual citizen cannot claim. “When one man libels another, he is amenable to the law. He cannot, under cover of the company law, be rid of the legal consequences of his statements. He cannot - protected by the company law - accuse another man of the foul crime of betraying his country at a time of war because of some fanatical idea, and then, posing as a great regenerator, slip from under and re-appear in another guise, to do more damage with a similar instrument.

This individual has done a very great deal of harm in connexion with. Australia’s war efforts. In Tasmania at the last referendum, the “ No “ vote showed no increase at all, while the “ Yes “ vote was sensibly diminished. In that conscriptionist State the affirmative vote scored only a very small majority. T attribute- the fact, in a large measure, to the continual dissemination through the post of mo3t opprobrious publications reflecting on a very large and worthy section of the community, which, in Tasmania, has done proportionately more, perhaps, than its population share towards our efforts generally in connexion with the war. Many people who were offended by those publications refrained from voting. They were so incensed at the employment of the postal service as a means of studiously and continuously transmitting published insults, that they remained away from the polling booths. Thus the “ Yes “ majority was substantially reduced.

In the Australian Mining and Industrial Record,- which is really The Australian Statesman and Mining Standard - for no legal change of name can alter the nature of the man - its publisher has had the egregious effrontery to publish an article denunciatory of the Railwaymen’s Union of Victoria for having passed a resolution expressing the idea that Australia should repudiate her war debt. I shall say nothing concerning the resolution itself. This individual published a leader deprecating, just a3 I do, the passing of such a resolution. But his concluding words, if I remember them rightly, were -

It is to bli hoped that the Government of the Commonwealth will take action to prevent any public or private repudiation of debts.

Let us review the position. The Labour party was in charge of the affairs of this Commonwealth during three -years of war from 1914 to 1917. It was also in charge of the government of this country prior to the outbreak of the war. If it had not been for the prevision - to repeat a word used frequently by Senator Bakhap during his speech - of that party, in making preparations for war, many of which were bitterly opposed by the party with which Senator Bakhap is associated to-day, we should not have been prepared when the dread tocsin of war sounded.

The honorable senator referred last night to the Australian note issue. It was the Australian Labour party, in charge of the affairs of the Commonwealth between 1910 and 1913, that instituted the Australian note issue. Tt was the same party in charge of the affairs of the country that later established the Commonwealth Bank. If it had not been for the introduction and carrying out of those two measures I venture to say that when war was declared in August, 1914, we should have had the greatest financial panic that Australia has ever known. The Commonwealth Bank and the Australian note issue have been the sheet anchors of Australian finance.

Again, this Australian Labour party, which the honorable senator asserts is a disloyal party, made other preparations for war. They established different factories, some of which we have been given the opportunity to visit during the last few weeks. The Harness Factory, the Clothing Factory, the Small Anns Factory at Lithgow, and the Commonwealth Woollen mills at Geelong were all established by the party . alleged by Senator Bakhap to be disloyal, in preparation for the dread day when war was declared. If it had not been for the prevision of this allegedly disloyal party we should not have had a uniform to place upon a soldier’s back, or a rifle to place in his hands, when the Mother Country called upon us for assistance in 1914.

Senator Bakhap referred to the InterState Labour Conference, to be held in Perth on Monday next. He practically based his charge of disloyalty against the Labour party on what might be done at that Conference. I have disposed of his charge of disloyalty so far as we on this side are concerned, and those outside this Chamber responsible for sending us here. But the honorable senator was not content with charging us with disloyalty. He repeated the charge, basing it upon what might happen next Monday in Perth, or during the sittings of the Labour Conference there, which will determine the future policy of the Labour party. The honorable senator’s remarks were, to my mind, gratuitous and unfair, and were not in keeping with the attitude he usually adopts when referring to any matter at all.

– I think .that tlie real object desired by every one in waging this war to a victorious conclusion is to prevent a recurrence of such a dreadful carnage again.

Referring now to the matter mentioned by Senator Gardiner yesterday of the continued detention of men who have served the sentences imposed upon them, under the Unlawful Associations Act, the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen) said that they were being detained in accordance with the law. The law says that they may be deported in addition to the sentence of the Court.

Senator Millen:

– And until the means to deport them are available they may be detained.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I give the honorable senator the benefit of that, but I am under the impression that he did not quote the law correctly. That is what I intend to refer to. I understand that Moyle and Barker were prosecuted under the Unlawful Associations Act of 1916.

Section 6 of that Act provides that-

Any person, not being a natural-born British subject born in Australia, who is convicted of an offence under either of the two last preceding sections, shall be liable, in addition to the punishment imposed upon him for that offence, and, either during, or upon the expiration of the term of his imprisonment, to be deported from the Commonwealth pursuant to any order of the Attorney-General.

Following on that we had the amending Act of 1917, section 4 of which provides -

Section 6 of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ not being a natural-^ born British subject born in Australia,” and by omitting the words “ either of the two last preceding sections,” and inserting in their stead the words “any one of the last three preceding sections, and who fails to satisfy the

Attorney-General that he is a natural-born British subject born in Australia.”

– The Minister did not say so, and that is why I think the law is being strained. There is no getting away from the fact that they have served their sentences, but are still detained. The Minister might let us know if they have had an opportunity of proving whether they were bom in Australia or not. Until they have had that opportunity they are being illegally detained in prison.

The Acting Minister for the Navy (Mr. Poynton) is reported to have said a few days ago that there is a scarcity of mechanics in Australia to carry on the shipbuilding programme, and that he was at a loss where to get them. I think he also said that a number of mechanics who would have been of great assistance in the Commonwealth shipbuilding scheme had gone to London as munition workers. It is true that a number of boilermakers, carpenters, joiners, and others went to England to assist at munition making; but will the Government take precautions that, in future, none of our mechanics are allowed to go away as munition workers or to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force? They should remain here to assist in our shipbuilding sememe. That ships are wanted every one admits. Every man who can assist in building a ship, particularly fitters, boilermakers, carpenters, or upholsterers, should .be kept iu Australia to assist in that work.

Senator Maughan:

– Hear, hear ! They would be helping to win the war.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– They would be helping to win it just as effectively as if they were in France, with rifles on their shoulders, or working in a munition shop in any part of Great Britain. I trust the Minister will inform the Senate whether the Government intend to keep mechanics of the grades I have mentioned in the Commonwealth, so that our shipbuilding scheme may be carried out.

Mention was made of the Recruiting Conference, and we were told that the Government were doing everything that was promised there. But no one who reads the Acting Prime Minister’s letter to the Leader of the Australian Labour party, a3 published in this morning’s press, can say that the spirit of that Conference is being carried out. One or two statutory rules which were objectionable, certainly, it is promised are to be repealed; but the agreement has not been observed with respect to the great bulk of the “War Precautions Regulations. In Fremantle, members of the “Wharf Labourers’ Union are still suffering. Although it was thought that, in pursuance of the Conference agreement, they would get employment, they have not been reinstated. The men who took their places during the recent strike still have preference.

Senator Guy:

– Notwithstanding that it costs from 25 per cent, to 40 per cent, more for that labour.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is true. Can those men be expected to be enthusiastic about recruiting whilst they are idly walking the streets of Fremantle, and other men, who took their places during the recent industrial dispute, are earning the money which should go to them? Those other men are physically fit to go to the Front and fight; but they do not volunteer for that purpose. They volunteered to take the work of the other men on the wharfs.

Senator Guy:

– One returned soldier in Launceston was refused a job on the wharf until he joined the other union.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I believe the same thing has happened in Western Australia. It is an undoubted fact that many of the waterside workers in Fremantle are still being victimized, despite the agreement reached at the Recruiting Conference. I do not wish to say anything that would prejudice recruiting. I am in favour of the voluntary system of recruiting; but I cann’ot expect the wharf labourers who have been displaced to be enthusiastic in securing recruits to assist us in the war whilst their present conditions continue.

Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Senate to review the question of the amounts paid to invalid and old-age pensioners. The maximum payment is 12s. 6d. per week. It is true that since the war began “the pension was increased by 25 per cent., the increase operating from the 30th September, 1915, but the cost of living has considerably increased since then. In many cases increased Wages have been given to meet the increased cost of living, but no such concession has been made to the invalid and old-age pensioners. In view of the great cost of woollen and other clothing, many pensioners are not able to obtain, particularly in the winter, the clothing which they need, and I submit to the Leader of the Senate that the Government might well review as early as possible the present scale of payment, with a view to increasing the pension to meet the increased cost of living.

I do not wish to join in the chorus of condemnation of the administration of the Defence Department. Almost every paper in the Commonwealth has been attacking the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) for his administration, principally in connexion with the ieport of the Royal Commission on the Department. I realize that the Minister is human, and so liable to err, and that the officers at the head of the different branches of his Department are also human and liable to err. ‘ The Department was suddenly faced with a situation that, perhaps, had not been foreseen. Early in 1914 the world was at peace, and the Department was jogging along under peace conditions. Suddenly it was faced with war conditions. Many mistakes have been made that probably could have been avoided, but others could not have been foreseen, and were unavoidable; but there is one statement of the Minister which I cannot understand. When replying to the report of the Royal Commission, and the criticisms levelled against his administration, he said that he was “ compelled to put into practice the principle of preference to unionists.” ‘ He gave that as a reason for some of the bad administration of his Department. He was Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this side of the chamber when Par- liament was dissolved on that very question. The Government of the day, of which Senator Millen was a member, brought in a Bill for the abolition of preference to unionists within the Public Service. Senator Pearce, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, opposed that measure, and with the rest of us went out on the first penal double dissolution of this Parliament. He and my other colleagues from Western Australia fought the election on that very principle; but during the campaign I never heard the honorable senator say a word against it. We won, and came back with increased numbers. We held thirty-one out of the thirty-six seats in the Senate, and Senator Pearce again became Minister for Defence in a Labour Government. During all that time, until the party split, I never heard him say a word against tho principle of preference to unionists. Yet he says that he was compelled to carry out that principle. I cannot imagine it to be the same Senator Pearce at all. If the principle was bad, why did he support it? If during the period from 1914 to 1916, when the party was solid, he discovered anything wrong with the principle, he should have told us or the public; but it was not until the Royal Coinmission made its report on his administration that he said he was “ compelled ‘’ to give effect to the principle. I see no compulsion about it. The honorable senator had never shown any objection to the principle previously that I know of, either publicly or privately. The preference to unionists that he was “ compelled “ to put into operation, affected practically only clerks, men getting about 10s. a day. I do not see how the application of that principle in the Defence Department could be responsible for any faults in the administration.

– If the honorable senator will take a walk with me I can conduct him to homes, not a mile from Parliament House, where meat -has not been seen for three months.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was referring, prior to the adjournment, to the case of a family which had not been able to purchase meat for some three months. Several honorable senators rather doubted the veracity of that statement. I was not drawing on my imagination. That case came under my own notice, and there are many other homes in Australia similarly situated. I was quoting, the circumstances of a man drawing a weekly wage of £3, and having a family of four. ge was paying a rental of 15s., and was unable to purchase meat either for himself or for his children. If honorable senators care to inquire they will find many such instances not far from Parliament Buildings.

In connexion with the second inquiry, the Commission examined another big batch of witnesses. Not only did it adhere to its first report in all particulars, but it was more emphatic, in the light of its additional evidence, that the price of meat should be upon the level of the London parity. To-day we have fighting for us members of the Australian Imperial Force. They are so designated officially; but there is another construction that can be placed upon those same letters, and that is, “ Australia’s Invincible Fighters.” Such they are, but they have left wives and children behind them, and no honorable senator can deny that the children of many of our soldiers fail to receive the meat which they should have, because their mothers cannot afford to purchase it. For that reason it is the duty of the Government to deal effectively and immediately with the price, and to inform Parliament of their intentions before the adjournment.

In response to what I may term the challenge of Senator Bakhap, I shall now give a quotation concerning the “small man.” The Commission states in its report -

It was common opinion that the grazing industry has never been so prosperous, more particularly for the mixed farmer and “ the small man,” as it is now; but it was contended that in some instances the losses of the year of drought had not yet been overtaken, and that the present prices should tie left available as a compensation for the past and security in case of an adverse future. Figures are quoted later tending to show that the industry - viewed as a whole - has already recovered the losses of the drought year, and if meat prices are now fixed on the basis of ordinary season conditions, the position might be reviewed in the face of any calamity, such as drought, just as the railway systems frequently carry starving stock free or at reduced rates.

Upon an examination of a number of pastoralists’ accounts in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, it has been found that, coupled with the recent good seasons, the high prices of meat and of wool have resulted not only in the losses of tho drought being overtaken, but in such profits being made that, taking the losses of the drought with the profits since, the four years 1914-1917 (both -inclusive) show a better total position than the previous four years.

There is an indication that the producer is not suffering, and will not suffer, if the price of meat is fixed, without any reservation and without any other conditions, at London parity. I will make one further quotation -

Another argument was that the capital value of the flocks and herds of the Commonwealth would be seriously lowered by a reduction in the price of meat.

The prosperity of the pastoral industry, however, depends not on calculations of the capital value of stock, but on the actual income derivable from that stock from year to year.

Further, the argument overlooks two important considerations. In the first place, values have been raised to their present level in great part by the action of the Imperial Government in offering an unusually high price hoth for wool and for exported meat, and if the price realized for the latter becomes the price for local consumption, values will still be much above what they would have been but for the war. Secondly, it is equally certain, though not so obvious or so often voiced, that the real monetary value of Australian incomes and wages has been, and is, seriously lowered by the great increases which have taken place in the price of meat.

Similar considerations apply to the objection that bankers and other financiers would not advance to graziers as much, particularly for the future purchase of store stock, if the value of fat stock comes down. The answer is that the requirements in the way of loan will be correspondingly less.

The vital point of that quotation is that the incomes and wages of the people of Australia have been seriously lowered by the great increase in the price of meat. Take, for instance, the members of any organization, either within the Commonwealth Public Service or outside, who have approached the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court for an increase in wages. Assuming that an advance has been awarded, its value is lost owing to the people having to pay for their meat the extraordinary prices which have been charged for some months past. If the Government are sincere in their attempt to fix prices they should have taken action long ago. At least twelve months have passed, and, despite the fact that two reports have been presented by the same Commission, the Government are inactive. Although I do not believe in hanging up Supply, if my vote could stop the granting of three months’ Supply just now, I would use it to that end until the Government saw fit to inform Parliament of their real intentions.

I desire to refer to a matter on behalf of Senator Barnes, who has had to depart for Western Australia. He has received a letter from a constituent in connexion with the price of secondhand bags, and has asked me to bring the matter before the Minister (Senator Russell). The epistle states - , The. Government fixed the price of new cornsacks, without making any attempt to fix the price of secondhand bags. This is the class of bag that the commercial parasite is waxing rich upon. New bags are quoted in last Saturday’s Argus as follows: - Fixed wholesale price, Oil. Cd. j delivered rails Melbourne, and retailed, 10s. The prices charged by agents such as A. M. Greenfield and Co., Brophy, Foley and Co., and other agents who do business in thu Ballarat district for secondhand bags, is Us. 3d. per dozen, or 3d. per dozen less than the bags arc originally sold for at the wharfs. ‘ .

Senator Russell:

– How old is that letter? Secondhand bags have been fixed at 6s. for nearly a fortnight.

Senator McDougall:

– The honorable senator’s remarks are very interesting, and I think we should have a quorum present. [Quorum formed.]

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was referring to the price of secondhand bags. Senator Russell now informs me that the price has been fixed at 6s., instead of at 9s. 6d.

Senator Russell:

– It is the first time that the price has been fixed, and that was a fortnight ago.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The date of this letter would coincide with that time. If the Minister assures me that the fixed price is about 6s. I will not pursue the subject further.

Senator Russell:

– I give the honorable senator that assurance.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– One other point which I desire to make has reference to the Defence Department. I have before me a letter- published in the Australian, which is the official organ of the Returned Soldiers Association of Western Australia. The letter is headed “ Dissatisfaction at the Base Hospital,” and it reads -

Sir, - I was pleased to notice in the last issue of the Australian that attention was drawn to the hours worked by the clerical staff at the Base Hospital. This is a matter which has called for redress for some considerable time, and it is up to the E.S.A. to see that some alleviation of the present hours worked is necessary. Soon after my discharge I applied for clerical work at the War Council, and was offered work at No. 8, which I accepted, but the hours worked were altogether too long, and I soon applied for demobilization, so I can speak from experience. The hours there are from 6.30 a.m. to C.30 p.m. for seven days a week, and one.half-day leave.

Now, the question arises: Of what use is it to ask for decent conditions for returned men if the military authorities won’t grant a fair thing? It is quite common to hear the remark among returned men that they worked at the Base for a short while, but could not stick the hours.

Possibly the II.S.A. is too concerned in fighting outside employers to turn their eyes to this sort of thing, but it must be very patent to them that there is something wrong when over 200 men applied for demobilization at the Base Hospital last year. We hear a good deal about Labour trying to capture the returned soldiers’ voting powers, but they will not have to do much trying if this sort of thing continues. It is high time that some responsible official looked into the question of hours, leave, &c, for men on home service at this No. 8 Hospital, otherwise we may hear tell of a “ conference “ there any time. - Yours, &c,

Two Stripes.

North Perth, 7th May.

I have another letter bearing on the same subject which I shall not read, because I have no desire to unduly detain honorable senators.

Senator Russell:

– The letter which the honorable senator has quoted refers to the Base Hospital at Perth?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No, to the Base Hospital at Fremantle. The complaint which it voices is one which is well worthy of consideration by the Government, and I hope that the desired redress will be given.

Yesterday replies were furnished to certain questions which I had asked concerning Commonwealth policemen. I inquired whether there are Commonwealth police engaged in our Commonwealth buildings, and if it is true that two constables were accompanying the Prime Minister- on his visit to the Old Country. The answers given were -

There is one special constable in the Commonwealth Offices, Melbourne. Two officers at present accompanying the Prime Minister were some time ago sworn in as special constables. They are performing’ duties in connexion with the visit of the Prime Minister to the United Kingdom.

I reiterate my regret at the inaction of the Government in connexion with fixing the prices of meat, and I again appeal to them, before Parliament goes into recess, to make a statement which will relieve the anxiety that is being so keenly felt in many homes throughout Australia. I appeal to them to say not merely that the recommendations of the Inter-State Commission will be adopted, but that those recommendations will be brought into operation at once.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Some time ago the Government relegated to the Inter-State Commission the duty of investigating and reporting on the cost of meat. I find that the Commission carried out the duty and made the following recommendations to the Government : -

Assuming that the policy of price-fixing is to he applied to meat, the Commission recommends -

That the Imperial contract prices, less a deduction of fd. per lb. (freezing charges), be fixed as the maximum wholesale prices for meat in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth (including Fremantle), Hobart, and Launceston, such prices to include delivery by wholesaler, where, as in Sydney and Melbourne, that is the custom of the trade. In Adelaide, the maximum wholesale price for beef to be1/2d. per lb. higher than in the other cities named, the maximum wholesale prices for mutton and lamb to be the same as in those cities.

That the prices so fixed be used as a basis for fixing the price on the hoof of cattle, sheep, and lambs in the centres where there is no wholesale, meat trade. In those centres, an official declaration should be made of the maximum weights upon which the bidding is to be based.

Xo action seems necessary with regard to retail prices, which (the evidence shows) will conform to wholesale prices.

B. piddington.

Mills.

Office of the Inter-State Commission,

Melbourne, 4th May, 1918.

The question of the price of meat is one which attracts possibly more public attention at the present time than any other question. But, although those recommendations were placed in the hands of the Government on the 14th May last, they have, up to the present, done little or nothing to give effect to them. The result is that, rightly or wrongly, a considerable section of the people are of opinion that they are paying very much more for beef than they should be. called upon to pay. Senator Gardiner quoted for us the retail prices of beef sold in the State butchers’ shops in Brisbane, and while he was speaking Senator de Largie interjected that beef was sold at half those prices in Perth.

Senator de Largie:

– I did not say half those prices.

Senator GRANT:

– That is what I understood the honorable senator to say; but if he assures me that he merely wished to assert that meat is sold more cheaply in Perth than Brisbane, I am prepared to accept his correction.

– The .15 pence in the retail trade troubles me.

Senator GRANT:

– No; what troubles the honorable senator is that while in Sydney the average retail price of sirloin of beef is 11.15d., in the State butcher shops in Brisbane it is 6.50d., a. difference of nearly 5d. per lb. The same disparity in price is evident throughout the return. In these circumstances the Governmenthave been excedingly negligent in not dealing with the report of the Inter-State Commission. What is the good of the Commission if its work is to be ignored ? It is a body of highly-paid intellectual gentlemen, who devote all their attainments to the elucidation of problems of this kind. The Government have no time to do it themselves, and when they get a report of this character they are apparently afraid to take action. If they are afraid, the sooner we find it out the better. . If the Queensland Government can provide its people with sirloins of beef at 6£d. per lb., it is surprising that the residents of Melbourne have to pay 10.45d., or the residents of Sydney, 11.15d. In round figures, the difference between the prices in Melbourne and Brisbane is 4£d., a sum which will easily appeal to the intelligence of Senator Bakhap. The Government of which he is a supporter sees the Melbourne public paying 4Jd. per lb. more for their beef than the residents of Brisbane have to pay, and does nothing. The honorable senator should, therefore, realize that the Government are not acting as they should act. If it is possible to reduce the price of meat - I do not say it is - the Government ought not to sleep on this report as they have been doing for the last fortnight. I place these facts on record to show that the Government are doing nothing whatever to deal with a very pressing problem.

The price of building material has gone up persistently for a considerable time past. The Deputy Prices Commissioner is conducting an investigation into this subject in Melbourne. According to a report which appeared in the’ Melbourne Herald of the 12th instant, a number of witnesses were examined, and their evidence was as follows: -

George Archibald Towers, of East St. Kilda, said the cost of erecting a six-roomed weatherboard house had increased 20 per cent, since 1914. A house which cost £700 to build in 1914 could not now be built under £850. Witness considered Queensland hoop-pine and Australian hardwood superior to Baltic pine for flooring. Baltic pine had increased from lis. to 25s. 100 feet.

A man in the building trade who keeps record of the cost of materials is in a good position to let the public know exactly what it cost him a number of years age and what it costs him to-day. That witness, Walter Attenborough, of Armadale, put in the following comparative table of cost of materials: -

The report states -

Mr. Attenborough considered that the cost of building had increased 33 per cent.

Alexander Younger, Caulfield, estimated the increased cost of building at 50 per cent Timber had increased 100 per cent. More brick than wooden houses were being built. He would say that 75 per cent, more brick houses were now being erected than in normal times. The increased cost of colonial tiles was great. Two years ago tiles were to be had for £7 a 1,000; now the price was £20 a 1,000. The cost of a “square” (about 100) tiles had increased from 32s. 6d. to 57s. 6d. Galvanized iron was almost out of the market.

Robert Irvine, of Coburg, said building prices in Melbourne were lower than those charged in Sydney and Adelaide. He did not consider the present prices of weatherboard houses unreasonable.

– That is ancient history. I will now quote the return showing the total number of enlistments.

It will be remembered that the so-called Win-the-war Government, in effect, commenced operations on 14th November, 1916, on which date the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) left the Labour party. Up to that time the total enlistments in the Australian Imperial Force was 268,451.

Senator Guthrie:

– The best men went first.

Senator GRANT:

– The loyalists- the greater part of them, men of the working classes. These are the men who enrolled themselves voluntarily during the time when the Labour party controlled the affairs of the country. What happened afterwards ? In October, 1916 - the last month in which the Labour party held the Treasury benches - enlistments totalled 11,520. Then began the campaign of misrepresentation and abuse; and in the following month the figures dropped to 5,055..

Senator Guthrie:

– What was the influence at work then?

Senator GRANT:

– Tt was the abuse and everlasting scandalizing of members of our party by the press of the country and all of the anti-Labourites rolled into one. That is the main reason why the reduction took place. In December of that same year the figures dropped to 2,617. Then, for the next seven months the average was slightly over 4,000 but it fluctuated down as low as 1518.

– I have no price.

The other day the Minister for Repatriation offered, if I would provide him with a return showing the area that is devoted to the production of fruit iu this country, to supply mc with the unimproved value of the land upon .which those orchards are situated. Accordingly I have ascertained from the Government Statistician that the value of the production of the orchards and fruit gardens of the Commonwealth for 1916-17 was £3,774,704. I shall bc glad, therefore, if Senator Millen will supply me with the value of the land that is occupied by these orchards. I may tell him that the productive acres under fruit total 177,120, and tho unproductive acres, S0,567; a total of 257,687 acres. I shall be glad if the honorable gentleman will supply me with the unimproved value of these lands, so that, when the apple-growers come to this Parliament for assistance, we shall be able to ask them how much land they own, and whether it is fair to tax the workers of this country in order to give them a subsidy? I hope that the Minister will supply me with the desired information at an early date.

I trust that my few remarks will induce the Committee to favorably consider the request made by the Government that we should grant them Supply for three months. I hope that, during the recess, they will devote attention to the question of the meat supply and also of the excessive cost of building materials, with a view to giving the country a square deal.

The Commission suggest that the price of sheep and cattle can be fixed on the hoof. I have had a life-long experience, and have always been considered a fairly good guesser of the weight of live stock. Some people call it judgment, but at the best it is only guessing. Honorable senators are aware that at agricultural shows there are sometimes guessing competitions, and people often go very close to the weight of a beast; but in most of those cases there is something more than a guess. It is not difficult to guess nearly the weight of a beast. If half-a-dozen men each guess a weight and put it on paper, and you take the average of the half-dozen guesses, it will not be surprising if you go very near to the actual weight.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is there any really reliable rule of arriving at the live weight of a beast?

Senator SHANNON:

– The only reliable way is to put the beast on the scale. You can put your rule over them, and your eye over them, and your finger under them, but the only test is to put them on the scale.

Senator Pearce:

– What about having a weight reader for every stockyard?

Senator SHANNON:

– We should require something more. It would be necessary to have a man who was also a judge of quality. There, is a great deal of difference in the quality of beasts. A man who knows nothing of the business might go into a yard and see a fine old sheep, one of these cross stags with a back broad enough to lie upon, and he would say, “That is a fine sheep; it is worth £3 fully.” There might be in the yard another sheep, a beautiful wether not half the size, but which, because of its quality, would really be worth the £3. The first animal would only be tallow, and the second meat of good quality. Unless a man is an expert in the business he may make a very great mistake even in deciding upon the quality of meat.

The Inter-State Commission -make a suggestion for increasing the flocks and herds of Australia. This is a part of their report which I say is so absolutely ridiculous as to border upon the idiotic. They say in this report, so fearfully and wonderfully made -

A well-known breeder of stud sheep- found that the demand for rams could not be supplied (the Iwanoff system of artificial increase of sire power not being practised in Australia).

They put an asterisk to this to direct attention to a footnote at the bottom of the page, which reminds me of Senator Grant’s frequent suggestion to honorable senators to spend 6d. on the purchase of Henry George’s works in order that they may learn something of land taxation. Here is the note -

See Davis’ Impotency, Sterility, and Artificial Impregnation, 1917, pp. 101-2. Most of those who keep ‘.horses and jacks for breeding purposes make use of the impregnator - to permit of the impregnation of a number of females without too great a drain upon the male. Instruments for the purpose are sold by all veterinary Instrument dealers, and the technique is so . simple that any one can perform the operation.

The Inter-State Commission advocate the use of this instrument to increase the flocks and herds of Australia. I do not know whether any members of the InterState Commission are experts in its use, but in their report they have overlooked the natural course, which must be followed before any increase can take place.

– At any rate, so far as recorded history shows, Diocletian was the first who really made a serious attempt to do something in the way of fixing prices. The result was that he closed up every place of business in his domain ; the streets were deserted, and the grass grew on the footpaths. If Australia is not careful she may have the same result.

We want Australia to produce as much as possible. The only solution of the high cost of living is in the one word “ production.” Unless we produce more than the people want, the people will have to pay more for it. As soon as we can overtake the consumption with production, so soon will the cost of living come down, and not before.

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

– It has been overtaken in the case of meat long ago.

Senator SHANNON:

– Does the honorable senator know the consumption of meat in Australia for 1913?

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

– I know the production is far more than the consumption.

Senator SHANNON:

– Then the honorable senator knows what is wrong, because in 1913 the consumption of mutton alone was over 14,000,000 sheep, and in beef over 2,000,000 cattle. Those were the numbers slaughtered in Australia, according to the Tear-Book.

Senator McDougall:

– How many years would it take to produce stock on a new station?

Senator SHANNON:

Senator SHANNON:

– The more direct the route and the quicker that stock are got to their, destination the better. The honorable senator is going in an opposite direction to that in which I want to lead the Senate. I want the Senate to consider the question of meat production, not only for our Allies across the water, but in order that the people down here may get a cheap joint. Meat is far too dear in Australia at present. It seems ridiculous that in a country like this we should have to pay ls. 3d. per lb. for beef and ls. for mutton, while a turkey may be bought for 9d. per lb.

This position has been brought about, not because we have exported too heavily, but because the Almighty has seen fit to withhold rain from Australia periodically right throughout her history.. It appears that, as soon as we reach a normal condition in the producing industry, Australia is overtaken by droughts, with most disastrous results to our producers. In this connexion our meteorologists occupy an important position. It is essential that they should supply reliable information. I remind the Senate that just before the 1914 drought overtook Australia people had been led to believe that after 1912 seasons would gradually improve, because 1913 was better than 1911-12. There was a general impression that Australia was over the drought period, and on the road to prosperity again. Had our meteorologists been worth their salt in prognosticating seasons, they should have at least been able to foretell that 1914 would be a year of drought, if not the greatest drought in the history of Australia ; but instead of that, the people were led to believe that, they could look forward to good seasons. I venture to say that had stock-owners been advised they would have been able to conserve sufficient fodder from the 1913 harvest for all requirements, and that we would not have lost a single hoof in 1914. I hold it is the duty of every legislator to impress upon the rising generation that drought conditions may be expected at regular intervals. One does not require to be a prophet or a meteorologist to foresee what is likely to happen. Our history shows that we may expect, with some degree of certainty, that Australia will be visited by a drought somewhere between the years 1922 and 1924, because these abnormally dry seasons appear to recur at intervals of from 7 to 10 years. But I am satisfied that Australia is so prolific, both in regard to the production of flocks, herds and cereals, that if we could take time by the forelock, and by making adequate provision for water conservation, we could effectively guard against all droughts. Water conservation is the prime consideration. It should be pointed out to the rising generation that they cannot do too much in the way of water conservation. We have our great “ Nile of Australia,” and for years we have seen one State squabbling with another as to which should have the greatest use of its waters. Then, just when we were having low rivers, we came to the conclusion that the Murray must be locked. That is just another instance of being too late. The history of Australia points to this : that we can look for another big flood on the Murray some time between the present date and 1920. Every indication points to a greater flood within that period than even last year’s record. People said the flood of 1870 would never again be reached; but, owing to what is being done now by way of deviation channels and the like, it is more than probable that the high mark of the 70 flood will be exceeded before long. The rising generation should be taught to make every provision both for droughts and for floods. Some parts of Australia have suffered in the past from excessive rains. To the people who have suffered I tender my sympathy; but I assure them that it is much better to be washed out than to be starved out; and, for all the damage done by floods in Australia, the total has been a thousand-fold exceeded by drought.

Having ventured tho opinion that price fixing will not have the desired result, I repeat that the watchword should be “ production.” Every man with a backyard of his own can do something towards production. Australians can do much more in regard to economic production than they have yet attempted. We should do nothing by legislation to hamper the production of commodities. The most effective way to hamper the man on the land will be by this price-fixing business. After all, our labours here are only to get a bit to eat and something to put on our backs; we cannot carry anything away with us. Yet we are worrying about fixing prices at a time when our granaries are full to overflowing, when the people are better off than ever, and when the only thing that is a little bit expensive is meat. And because of that, an InterState Commission is appointed, which, as the result of its investigations, makes ridiculous and idiotic recommendations, whereupon the price of meat is to he fixed. I trust the fixing will be delayed until things have naturally regulated themselves.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [5.6]. - My colleague is not enthusiastic about price fixing, except where it is to the advantage of the producer or the salesman. When the system is applied to bringing down the cost of living to the consumer, he holds that it is all wrong. I propose to give a few extracts from the Inter-State Commission’s reports to show that it has based its conclusions on sound lines. I regret that the Government have displayed indecision in putting the report and recommendations into practice. When the Commission made its earlier reports, it was understood that the Government would adopt them. However, influence was brought to bear, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) referred the subject back to the Commission for further investigation. The result has been to confirm in every particular the previous findings. These are now substantiated by additional evidence, and the objections urged against the earlier conclusions have been met in an absolutely conclusive manner.

I am surprised that Senator Shannon had the temerity to bring forward the matter of the Queensland embargo again. It has been shown to be a myth. The Inter-State Commission dealt with it in its report (No. 4), from which I shall quote. In an earlier report, misled by the prevailing opinion, and by certain ex parte evidence taken in Victoria, the Commission was inclined to look upon the embargo as the reason for the enhanced price of meat. However, that body has now made the amende honorable, in the following manner: -

In the first part of this Report, sent in on 3rd October, 1917, the Commission, acting upon the only evidence then before it, emphasized the restriction on the transfer of store cattle from Queensland to New South Wales and Victoria as one principal factor in raising the level of prices throughout the southern States. Hie evidence taken in Melbourne was unanimous and clear on this point, but in Sydney figures were submitted by Mr. J. B. Cramsie, who appeared for the Graziers Association of New South Wales, which showed that the so-called “ embargo “ has not had the effect ascribed to it, and the Commission accordingly withdraws the comments made upon evidence, which now proves to have been erroneous, except as to the charge of 10s. per head for permits and as to the preventing of fats from crossing the border. At the same time, the Commission would add that the impression was bona fide and universal among stock men as to the embargo having starved the markets of Sydney and Melbourne.

One of the reasons given for the high cost of meat has been the increased cost of labour. I will put on record what the Commission has said in respect to that. On page 22 of this report, No. 4, under the heading, “ Answers to questions,” it says, concerning Queensland, “ Increased costs of labour and material are not important factors in the rises since 1914.” Senator Shannon called into question the attitude of the Commission in taking 1913 as its basis on which to make comparisons. That is the usual method, namely, to take the year before the war as a basis for all comparisons since the war began. I propose to show by means of this interesting report how some of the operators in Sydney have been working, with a view to keeping up the prices of meat, and how they have formed combines for that purpose. In its report the Commission refers in scathing terms to the operations of Mr. T. A. Field. It says, on page 29 -

Evidence was given that the firms controlled by Mr. Field bid ostensibly against him. As he is a station-owner in a large way of business, and commands such an influence over retailers, his interests lie in keeping up the price of meat and stock as obviously as those of the retailers lie in their coming down.

It is impossible to determine exactly how far this partial monopoly of the wholesale trade has kept up prices; but the facts as to the supply in the State given above, as well as the universal impression in the trade, make it clear that one chief reason why retail prices are so much higher in Sydney - the main killing centre of a great stock-raising State - than in Melbourne or Brisbane, is the hold the combination has over retailers, and its sympathetic action towards pastoralists sending stock to the markets.

Upon page 2S of its report the Commission states -

Mr. Field, having thus admitted that Morgan Ford was “ practically Mr. T. A. Field,” he was questioned about evidence before the Royal Commission (1912). In the evidence given before that Royal Commission, Mr. Morgan Ford had sworn (evidence, page 110, question 4666 et seq.) that he had no connexion with Mr. Field, was not financed by him, and had no business relations with him, except in getting a little advice. It was all “ purely imagination that Mr. Field had any control over his business.” He even told Mr. Braddon, a member of the Commission (question 4774), that he had a little capital of his own. “ I have not been,” he said, “a poor man all my life,” and he proceeded to give the sources from which he derived his capital. A month later, before the same Commission,- Mr. Field swore (question 6487) that he believed Mr. Morgan Ford purchased the business of Miller and Company. Mr. Field admitted to the Chief Commissioner that when he so swore, he had read the gist of Mr. Morgan Ford’s evidence. As has been already shown, this evidence imposed on the Royal Commission, who said (page 33) : - “ In the competition which ensued, Miller and Company lost money and sold their mutton business to Mr. Morgan Ford, who had been manager for them.” In view of the deliberately false evidence of both Morgan Ford and T. A. Field before the Royal Commission, the Chief Commissioner drew the attention of the Attorney-General of the State to what had occurred (the testimony having been given before a Royal Commission of the State), and invited him to consider whether both these witnesses should be prosecuted for perjury.

In the sequel to the evidence the statement is made -

There is a wise maxim in the Courts, “ Never intrust the lamb to the wolf.” The Government of New South Wales found that they had made this mistake with the beef and mutton, as well as the lamb.

It proceeds -

It is interesting to note that in an address to the retail butchers, on the 31st October, 1913, on the striking achievements of the pool, Mr. T. A. Field said: “One of the greatest results is that one of the biggest gangs of bandits which ever existed in this or any other State, that is, the Australasian Meat Industries’ Employees Union, has been compulsorily disbanded.”

We were told during the recent industrial disturbance that the Government had no desire to crush unionism. But in view of the extracts which I have read, I leave it to honorable senators to say who were the bandits - the Pool or those whom they succeeded in .crushing. I do not think that any honorable senator desires a reduction in the prices of meat with a view to compelling the graziers to sell at anything less than a fair profit. Why, the evidence given by the graziers themselves is that the rate recommended by the InterState Commission will pay them handsomely. There was quite a number of witnesses who admit that, but I shall content myself with quoting only one of them, in the person of the Treasurer of South Australia, who is himself a farmer and grazier. In his evidence he said -

I should say, under ordinary conditions, the Imperial contract price is a payable one.

That is the tenor of the testimony of all the interested parties.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Did the honorable senator see in the Adelaide newspapers the other day what the Treasurer of South Australia says now?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– Yes. But I have quoted his evidence upon oath, and that evidence is supported practically by the testimony of all the graziers who appeared before the Commission. I now propose to read a few ex tracts from the re-investigation report of the Inter-State Commission. It says -

The present prices of meat for home consumption in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, are about 100 per cent, higher than the prices in 1913.

I believe that the accuracy of that statement has been questioned. It has been urged that the prices ruling at present are only SO per cent, higher than those which obtained in 1913. But even if that be so, the profit is still a very considerable one.

The Imperial contract prices, after deducting §d. per lb. for freezing, are about 65 per. cent, higher ‘than the prices ruling in 1913. That is to say that the meat producers are now getting 65 per cent, higher prices than they obtained prior to the war, notwithstanding Senator Shannon’s denunciation of the proposal to “ rob “ them. The report continues -

If the meat slaughtered in that year had been sold at the prices now suggested, the increased return to the grower would have been £13,500,000.

The adoption of the Commission’s recommendation, therefore, will mean that next year the growers will receive £13,500,000 more for their stock than they would have received prior to the war. In the face of these facts it is idle to talk about the “ robbery “ of the producers. The Commission’s report proceeds -

In Queensland the Imperial contract prices reduced by the arrangement with the State Government referred under heading, “ Imperial contract prices,” are unquestionably accepted as satisfactory.

According to the evidence placed before the Commission, the Queensland graziers are satisfied with those contract prices.

In New South Wales, export under the Imperial contract prices, which has never altogether ceased in either beef or mutton, has been resumed as to mutton on a fairly large scale. In Victoria the fair inference from the evidence is that the export of mutton and lamb will reach normal proportions in a few months’ time.

The Imperial contract price for wool, as compared with the pre-war prices, gives an increased annual return per sheep of not le’ss than 4s. per head.’

In the light of these figures the poor men, who, according to Senator Shannon, are about to be remorselessly robbed, appear to- he doing pretty well. A good many persons would be very glad to be robbed in the same way. The report continues - Every pastoral witness questioned on the point during the re-investigation, admitted that the Imperial contract prices would, in normal seasons, be payable to the producer.

There is no desire to impose any disability on the grazier, but it is reasonably urged that in a time of acute stress like the present, when the public are making great sacrifices, no particular body of men should be allowed to make abnormal profits. They should be satisfied with reasonable profits. We know that at the instance of the pastoralists the first recommendations of the Commission were reconsidered. Yet the Commission says -

Every pastoral witness questioned on the point during the rc-investigation admitted that the Imperial contract prices would, in normal seasons, be payable to the producer.

On these facts it seems to the Commission impossible to avoid the conclusion that, considering the Commonwealth as a unit, the home consumption equivalent to the Imperial contract prices would, be fair to producers as a basis of prices for home consumption.

Those who question the recommendations of the Commission have not attempted to controvert its figures.

I entirely agree with Senator Shannon that in view of the immense liabilities we are incurring the salvation of our country lies in the encouragement of production. I think that the prices recommended by the Inter-State Commission are sufficiently high to encourage stock production. But so far as wheat production is concerned, I think there is room for greater consideration for the wheat growers. Important as the production of stock is, I hold that it is better for the community generally that land adapted for the purpose should be under cultivation rather than under stock. A great many of the wheat producers of South Australia are very much dissatisfied with the management of the Wheat Pool by the Government. I was strongly in favour of the Pool. I thought that, during this time of war, when shipping must be practically under the control of the Government, only the Government could satisfactorily deal with the marketing of wheat. In the circumstances. I am rather disappointed with the way in which the Government have bungled the business. They have done as the New South Wales Government did in Sydney in dealing with meat. They put the matter into the hands of middlemen and interested parties, and for a long time gave the wheat farmers no representation in the management of the business.

.- I am glad of the correction. My remarks must apply to the State Government, and the way in which they have mismanaged their share of the business. So dissatisfied were the farmers and settlers with what had been done that they formed an organization of their own, and a political organization at that. They ran candidates at the last State election, and the President of the Farmers and Settlers Association was one of those elected to the State Parliament at that election.

– Has he had an opportunity to prove that he was, or was not, born in Australia?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.He does not claim that he was born in Australia. A sentence of six months is provided to meet the charge on which he was convicted, but on the evidence placed before it the Court apparently did not consider the charge a very serious one, and imposed a sentence of only four months. Moyle served that sentence long ago, but he is still in prisonwith many others. I contend that not only this man, but others referred to by Senator Gardiner, as well as internees and members of the Industrial Workers of the World, should be released unless the Government can produce some evidence against them.

Senator de Largie:

– To whom?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLINTo a Court. If the Government have any further charges to urge against them let them put them on trial, and let a Court say whether they should ‘ serve a further sentence. Ministers quibble in dealing with this question by saying that they are empowered under the Unlawful Associations Act to continue to detain these people. I did not contend that the detention after they had served their sentence was unlawful, but that it was unfair and un-British when a man had served his sentence to still detain him in custody. The case of members of the Industrial Workers of the World so detained is pretty hard, but the case of some of those of alien descent amongst the internees is harder still. The Industrial Workers of the World man has had a trial, and has been given the opportunity to bring evidence to rebut the charges made against him. Those of alien descent who have been interned have had no such opportunity. A policeman has come along and arrested them, and they have been interned without knowing who are their accusers or on what charges they have been arrested.

Senator Keating:

– Is the honorable senator referring to alien enemies?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I think their case is harder still. A number of these people are citizens of Australia of Australian birth. In the internment camp they formed an Australian-born Internees Association, and I intend to quote from a letter written by a member of that Association to the secretary of the Labour party. The letter did not arrive at its destination for some time after it was posted. Inquiries were made about it, and it came to hand at last with the stamp of the censor, showing that it had been held up. I am referring to this case in particular, because it deals with men who are countrymen of mine in a double sense, since they are Australians and South Australians. It refers to a family named Dechert. There are four brothers, all South Australian-born, who have held positions under the Commonwealth or State Governments. Here iswhat the writer of the letter says -

In October last, when the proclamation was made calling up single men for military training preliminary to service overseas, Ave notified the Adelaide military authorities that our consciences precluded our taking part in overseas service against Germany, the land of our parents’ birth. Simultaneously we resigned the positions which we held in the Commonwealth and State Public Services of South Australia, quite realizing that it was anomalous for us to hold such positions while others might be compelled to take part in military service.

We have to our credit honorable and conscientious service in the Government employ, and reference to the heads of the respective Departments will substantiate our claim that our work and devotion to duty were above question.

Senator Guthrie:

– An ex-parte statement.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I admit it.

We claim that our internment was brought about to appease the conscriptionists and antiGerman bodies, and despite the extenuating circumstances of our case, advantage was taken of our German parentage to have us placed out’ of the way. While other defaulters, who were prosecuted or imprisoned, have been fullypardoned and their liberty in noway restricted,we remain imprisoned in face of appeals to the honorable Minister for Defence, and in contradiction to the general amnesty which was granted by the Governor-General.

Whatever may be the reasons for the internment of other British subjects, we feel that ours is a case to which the fullest consideration is due, as we claim that we are entitled to that liberty which should be the possession of every real Australian. ( Signed )

F. W. Dechert, F. T. J. Dechert, W. E. G. Dechert, A. W. R. Dechert, 40th Company, 7th Mess.

I admit, as Senator Guthrie says, that it is an ex-parte statement, and for all I know the Government might have some incriminating evidence against these men, to justify them in holding them. I have simply given a prima facie case, which deserves some consideration. Unless Ministers have something incriminating against them, the men certainly ought to be released.

Senator Guthrie:

– The case has had a lot of consideration.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLLN Does the honorable senator know anything of it?

Senator Guthrie:

– I do. They said they could not conscientiously fight for Australia, and yet you claim them as comrades!

Senator . Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.The honorable senator will have an opportunity of putting the case against them. I think their father was an inspector of police in South Australia for . some years.

Reference has been made to the question of the war and peace proposals. I admit frankly that I am one of those “ idiots,” of whom we have heard from the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who believe that it would be wise for the belligerent Powers to enter into negotiations with the idea of securing an enduring peace. There are a few more “ idiots “ of that nature about. I think the majority of the people of the belligerent countries are of the same opinion. I am confident that the majority of those in Australia are. Here is another “ idiot,” who makes the following statement: -

I do not believe that an out-and-out victory is possible for any group of nations. I consider that we have fought to a stage when the enemy is now ready to consider and concede terms.

That “idiot” is General Smuts, a member of the War Cabinet in Great Britain, and that statement was made by him to the workers of the Clyde only a week or two ago. Reference has been made to the German colonies and the new Monroe doctrine formulated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), who has said, “Hands off the Pacific!”

Senator de Largie:

– That doctrine has been approved by this Chamber.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

.-I do not think we went so far as that in the resolution we passed. It dealt with the return of the German colonies, but Mr. Hughes refers to the whole of the Southern Pacific. To show that his ideas are opposed to Imperial policy, here is what Mr. Lloyd George said -

German colonies to be held at the disposal of a conference, whose decisions must have regard to the wishes and interests of the inhabitants.

Territorial settlement based on the right of self-determination and consent of the governed.

That is the latest Imperial policy as announced by the Prime Minister of England (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not know whether the policy of the Prime Minister of Australia will override it or not, but if we are to formulate this immense claim for the overlordship of the Pacific, in which the Dutch, Japanese, Yankees, andFrench, as well as the British, have Possessions, we are taking on a very large order. Later the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to state that Australia should have the complete control of the Islands of the Pacific, and that he is perfectly willing that friendly Powers should retain their Possessions in that ocean. That would not remove the menace to Australia’s safety which he foresees from the proximity of possibly hostile nations in the Pacific, because the nations we are fighting to-day may be our Allies in a few years, and our Allies to-day may be our opponents then. If the safety of Australia can be established only by Australian control of the South Pacific, this new Monroe doctrine must include giving notice to quit to all the nations who have Possessions there. We have the Dutch in New Guinea just alongside of us. They are not a very formidable nation, but they may hereafter be in alliance with some other nation. I am not anticipating anything of the sort, but those are possibilities we have to consider when we attempt to formulate such a policy.

Numerous peace proposals have been made, some by the Prime Minister of England (Mr. Lloyd George), some by the President of the United States of America (Mr. Wilson), His Holiness the Pope, Baron Hertling, the German Imperial Chancellor, and Count Czernin, the Chancellor of Austria. A resolution was passed in the German Reichstag favouring a policy of peace without annexations or indemnities. That was passed some twelve months ago, and although the statements of various German publicists and others have been frequently quoted as repudiating it, I believe I am correct in saying that it still stands unrepealed, and that no counter-resolution has since been passed. It is, therefore, the official resolution of the German Parliament.

Senator Keating:

– What is meant by “ without indemnities “ ?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.That none of the belligerents should claim monetary reparation for any damage done.

Senator Keating:

– Then there is to be no reparation for the wrongs of Belgium ?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.The word “ indemnity “ has a very definite meaning.

Senator Keating:

– They may mean by that resolution, “ without indemnities to be paid by Germany.”

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.When one compares the various peace proposals, it is found that there is substantial agreement in three-fourths, and, perhaps, in even four-fifths, of the propositions. There is general agreement on some of the most fundamental principles on which a durable peace might be based. I do not think it is “ idiotic “ or unreasonable to suggest that, in view of such a consensus of agreement up to a certain point, negotiations between the parties might result in the adjustment of the remaining conditions in a satisfactory manner, particularly when the alternative is a fight to a finish, which may last for years, and as to which, I say sadly, we have no assurance whether it will end in Paris or in Berlin. The proposals of the Labour party as to peace by negotiation are neither unreasonable nor “ idiotic.” They are on a par with the suggestions of the Labour party in Great Britain, and not far astray from: the proposals of President Wilson and Lloyd George himself. We are told that it means “ hoisting the white flag “ and “ throwing in the towel,” and we are asked to look at the result of negotiations in Russia and Roumania. The cases are not at all analogous. The peace made with Russia, Roumania, and Servia was a peace between conquerors and conquered. Thank God we are not in that position. We would enter into the negotiations on equal terms, not as an exhausted or defeated nation, but as one holding its own, with immense resources still behind it, and entitled to demand fair conditions. It is only from that stand-point that I would suggest or approve of negotiations for peace being entered into.

I am proud of the position which Australia has taken in this war from the start. She still holds the proudest position among the British Dominions whatever way we look at it. If we take the number of men she has sent in proportion to her population, or the amount of money she has put into the war, or the number of Australians who have paid the supreme sacrifice, showing that they have been in the thick of the fight from the beginning, or the number of honours gained, the result is the same. Only the other day I came across in a magazine in the Library some figures showing that our men have not only been in the thick of the fight, but have gloriously distinguished themselves in it. This was a list of the Victoria Crosses awarded to the British Forces during 1917. Out of 145 awarded to British soldiers, including the Dominions, seventeen went to the Australian Imperial Force, eight to Canada, and two to New Zealand. The population of Canada is nearly double ours, and that of New Zealand about one-fourth. Whichever way the comparison is made, good old Australia holds a glorious position in the assistance it has given to the Empire in the supreme crisis of its history.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– There are one or two matters to which I desire to direct attention in the course of this debate and before Parliament goes into the recess which we anticipate, but before doing so, I wish to refer to a subject mentioned by Senator O’Loghlin. The honorable senator, following the course laid down by his leader (Senator Gardiner), ventured some observations upon a proposition for a calling together of the belligerent powers, with a view to establishing peace. The honorable gentleman has given expression to sentiments which, as he assured us and which, as we all know, he sincerely entertains; but, personally, I am of the opinion, and I as sincerely hold it, that, at this juncture, any talk of peace of the character adumbrated by his remarks, is particularly dangerous to our interests. At this particular crisis in the progress of the war, I think it is obvious that we should leave the adjustment of such matters as the foregathering of belligerent powers to those in control of our Empire and the Allied countries. The present is a particularly inopportune time for amateurs to venture into the field of peace-making. If we look at the position of the Allies and our enemies in relation to their respective objectives, it must be admitted, I think, that our enemies are at present in a rauch better situation than we could have wished to find them at any stage of the war, so that the time for peace overtures is more opportune now for our enemies than ourselves. I am not one of those who believe that discussion, either here, or in the Imperial Parliament, or elsewhere, of details appertaining to this war, such as our respective objectives, our respective strengths in man power, materials or resources, or as regards our present or future intentions, is of very great value. On the contrary, I am inclined to think that any such discussion, so far from heartening the nation or helping those who are committed to the war work, is calculated rather to impair our effort. These are matters better left to the inner Councils of the Empire. They should not be too much canvassed or discussed in public, whether it be in the streets, through the columns of the press, or in our Parliaments. If we are to act effectively, our several Governments must be trusted with a large amount of executive power, and we, as members of Parliament, whilst maintaining a certain amount of control over them, must repose in them sufficient confidence to permit of their directing all their energies to the discharge of the important duties in which they are engaged. To ask or expect them to discuss in Parliament, or through the columns of the press, all the details to which I have referred, would often be to help the other side and impair our own efforts.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Australian opinion is invited by the Imperial authorities.

Senator KEATING:

– Yes, and the Government can, or should be, capable of estimating the flow and current of our public opinion. I think it would be harmful to ourselves and helpful to our enemies if we had too much discussion, open and public,- upon details in connexion with this great struggle.

Having said that I think I am not transgressing beyond the limits I have laid down when I say that if we look at the present position in Europe and elsewhere we must admit it is more favorable to our enemies than we had ever anticipated, and certainly more favorable than we should like to see permanently established. That being so, I think it would be utterly improper, and certainly disadvantageous, at this juncture to call a halt in belligerent activity. This is a path which I think an amateur should fear to tread, for these matters are of the most vital importance and call for a display of the highest skill in diplomacy and sound experience in international relationship. The man in the street, though he may be wise in his generation, with wisdom of a peculiar character, does not usually possess the particular wisdom and the particular quality of skill that would enable him to deal with a delicate situation such as this is, and which the representatives of our Empire and her Allies would have to meet when the Conference is summoned to settle upon a permanent basis of peace.

What is the position? Broadly speaking, we should be at peace to-day if Britain had had her way. Britain never sought this war. And when I say that of Britain I s.ay it too of the British Empire, of which we are a part. So far from Britain having prompted this war, she was the last of all the Great Powers to enter into it in 1914. She hesitated, in fact, so long about it that she subjected herself to the risk of misunderstanding by her Ally, Prance, and for some feverish, days France was in a position of apprehension and trepidation, wondering what Britain would do in this mighty world conflict, which was then unrolling itself before her eyes. What was Britain doing then? Through her” most skilful diplomats she was using every art that she could command of persuasion, argument, and of entreaty to Austria and Germany, begging them to take no step which would deluge Europe for years in human blood ; begging those Great Powers to commit themselves to no course of action which would lead to devastation throughout the countries of the old world. But argument, persuasion, and entreaty fell upon deaf ears, and when Britain realized that argument with the Central Powers was useless she reluctantly but resolutely abandoned the force of argument, and resorted to the argument of force in conjunction with Russia and France. What was her position then? The Kaiser turned to an onlooking and listening world, and spoke of Britain’s “ contemptible little army.” He little realized when he used that phrase that he was for all times branding Britain as a non-military Power - a Power that was going into the war with a military strength which he could speak of, with confidence and disdain, as Britain’s: “contemptible little army.” But that phrase was in itself an absolute proof, if proof were needed, that Britain did not enter voluntarily into this war. If we take Britain’s standing army at the time she entered’ into the war, and add to it the then standing army of the United States of America, the two together were not as great as the standing army of the smallest of the Balkan States. Who can say, therefore, that Britain, any more than America, sought this war? And as Britain was so forced into a German-timed war, let us be careful not to be inveigled into a German-timed peace. And so I say that it is most dangerous at this moment for amateurs, for the inexperienced, to be talking of negotiations to bring about peace. That is a matter which, as I have already said, should be dealt with by men much more skilful than those who so glibly offer this suggestion to our nation.

The experience of those who in the past have entered into negotiations with representatives of the Central Powers shows that, as at present constituted, they cannot be trusted. What else can be inferred from the violation of Belgium, from Germany’s utter disdain of her national obligations with respect to the maintenance of the neutrality of Belgium? Germany, in conjunction with Britain and other European Powers, long ago entered into an obligation for the maintenance of Belgium’s neutrality. The obligation was upon each to each and each to Belgium. It was left to Germany alone to treat that arrangement as a “ scrap of paper.” We all know what took place in the days of July and August, 1914, preceding this war - how the assassination at Sarajevo was used as a pretext for forcing belligerent relations upon Austria and Russia in order that the flames of war might be lighted by Germany in most of the European countries. We should, therefore, leave all details as to peace terms to the diplomatists of Great Britain and her Allies, who have had actual experience with the representatives of the Central Powers in the past. It is they, and they alone, who will be able to deal skilfully with any arrangement that is likely to be entered into. It is more likely that anything that might now be agreed upon would not be carried out, so long as the conditions which existed before the war, and which exist now in the Central Powers, are maintained. And that is what is meant’ when it is said that there must be something in the nature of a revolution in Germany. It need not necessarily mean a bloody revolution, but there must be a revolution constitutionally, and in German public sentiment, before we can be sure we are dealing with a Power that will respect its obligations. It has failed to respect them in the past, and its attitude towards Austria is one of such constraint that the same must be - said of Austria. Why, it must be asked, should Germany, at this moment, get an advantage by our calling for a cessation of the fighting? Why should the belligerents, as they stand to-day, be pressed to enter the council-room to endeavour to formulate terms of peace? Why should such a proceeding be sought just at a time when everything is in Germany’s favour, and when the cessation of fighting would give Germany an opportunity for recuperation? And why should the Allies be asked to formulate peace proposals when anything that might be agreed upon is just as likely to be treated as a scrap of paper, as was the treaty with Germany regarding Belgium ? We know that one of the reasons why Germany treated the obligations to Belgium and other Powers as scraps of paper - the main reason, iu fact; - was that Germany might pass through Belgium and attack France. But there was another purpose. Germany desired to reach the coast so as to be within striking distance of Great Britain. Therefore,, not merely honour and the fulfilment of our covenant with the Powers and Belgium, but also the instinct of self-preservation, dictated that Great Britain should enter into the war. But the last thing of all to be considered is that, because Britain is having perhaps a harder time than was anticipated, a halt should be’ cried, and an opportunity given for the belligerent Powers to meet and formulate a basis for peace. And, too, it should not be forgotten that those terms might finally be rejected by the Central Powers, and that, even if they were accepted, they might not be later on respected by them; while, in any case, their formulation would occupy so much time that the enemy would be given what

Germany most needs at present - an opportunity for recuperation and revivification. At this juncture it is idle and frivolous, and worse, for anybody unversed in international history and diplomacy to take any course of action calculated to create a current of opinion in the direction of opening up immediate negotiations for peace. This is the most critical and most dangerous period of the war, and the worst time of all in which amateurs should seek to interfere. It must not be forgotten that this was a German-timed war. It is a German - made war. The peace that is spoken of now might not be wholly German-made, but it would be certainly German-timed. And it is our obligation to avoid anything of that character.

I wish to deal now with one or two matters concerning local administration. Some time, ago, Senator Guy made reference in the Senate to the case of certain intending wireless operators who had enlisted in Tasmania. The circumstances under which they joined the Forces were such that their subsequent treatment went very far to show that,- inadvertently or otherwise, the Department was not keeping faith with them. Early in April this year Alderman Meagher, of Hobart, who had been mayor of the city, and is chairman of the Public Service Board of Tasmania, and who had been at one time a telegraph operator, called upon me. He had written to me with respect to these operators, and I understand that at about the same time he had communicated also with the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce). In his letter to the Minister, he referred to the case of the operators, and remarked -

A perusal of the correspondence attached herewith will convey to you some of the facts of the case. I may mention that no reply, not even an acknowledgment, has been vouchsafed my communication of 23rd November, 1917, a communication which Lieutenant Medhurst, O.C. 31st Signal Corps, Australian Engineers, duly forwarded through the proper channel.

While Mr. Meagher was in Melbourne, knowing how much the Minister’s time is occupied, I suggested that the visitor should personally interview the Secretary to the Department, and supplement in a direct statement the information he had furnished by medium of his letters. I made an appointment. Mr. Meagher called upon the Secretary, and placed the matter fully before him. As the result of his previous communications, and of his direct representations, the position of those among the men who had enlisted under the original conditions was very favorably considered. I was informed by Mr. Meagher that an order which had gone out with respect to those men had , been subsequently modified or cancelled. I understood that that was where the matter had been left, and that everything was satisfactory, until Senator Guy again raised the matter in this chamber. As far back as 14th August, 1917, Mr. Meagher wrote to the Organizing Secretary of the State Recruiting Committee in Hobart as follows: -

In the window of your recruiting rooms a notice appears to the effect that telegraph operators are urgently needed at the Front.

Under the modern system of signalling in war, entailing as it does the services of trained telegraphists, it was to be expected that, sooner or later, a shortage in the supply of such men would, be experienced at the Front, unless systematic efforts were made in the matter of special training. Telegraphists ara not to be found easily, and, in some instances, their training involves close application and attention on the part of the instructors. . . .

I am a busy man, but my services as a certificated telegraphist are at the disposal of the military authorities, if such services could be utilized for instructional purposes, and without fee or reward. My age is forty-six years. I had a lengthy experience as an active telegraphist- (five years under the Government of Victoria, ten years under the Government of Tasmania, and one year in Western Australia. I was always regarded as a speedy “ sender “ and “ receiver.” … If my proposition be favorably considered, I should be glad to discuss with the authorities details, such as the time I could give to the work, See.

I may, mention that my son is at the Front, and, according to latest advices, was in command of a company at the battle of Messines Ridge.

On the 30th August a reply was sent to Mr. Meagher by the State Organizing Secretary, Captain Ogilvy, as follows: -

Your patriotic offer to assist in the training of operators for service at the Front was forwarded to military head-quarters for their consideration, and the following reply has been received: - “Yours of 15th inst., forwarding letter of Mr. Meagher, has received consideration, and the suggestion is considered a valuable one. The Commandant desires you to convey his thanks to Mr. Meagher for his patriotic offer, and to inform him that the Defence Department will be glad to avail themselves of his services under the following conditions: -

That a signalling class will be formed at Anglesea Barracks* under the supervision of Lieutenant Medhurst, assisted by Mr. Meagher and others.

That the Recruiting Committee will undertake to find not less than six candidates who are passed as medically fit for the Australian Imperial Force, and undertake to enlist when the course of instruction is completed.

The class will probably meet twice a week, and extend over twenty or more lessons.

Candidates must pass a test at conclusion of the course.”

The classes will probably be held in a room at this recruiting office, as being most centrally situated, and we are getting the names of candidates, so it is trusted that we will soon be availing ourselves of your offer of service.

On the 4th September Mr. Meagher communicated with Captain Ogilvy, acknowledging that letter. A class was formed. Lieutenant Medhurst, who has had considerable practical experience in that class of work, and Mr. Meagher also, gave up their time to the teaching of these men. They spent their own money, too, in connexion with the matter. About that time an order was issued as follows : -

No. 75519, Department of Defence, Melbourne, 15th October, 1917.

Commandant Sixth M.D.

The needs of the signal service are becoming increasingly great, and the demands for operators, both wireless and other, correspondingly difficult to meet. The following are chiefly required : -

Wireless operators.

Office telegraphists.

Railway telegraph operators.

Operators.

Telegraph line repairers.

No regular quota has been called -for from the Sixth Military District, but no opportunity of obtaining suitable men should be overlooked, however.

It is thought that by using the press periodically to give publicity to the great importance of this branch of the service in modern war, and to the need of keeping signal service units up to strength, a certain response would result. Likely institutions such as the Post Office, railways, technical and training schools should be circularized ….

Recruits offering as operators will be required to pass an operating test of sending and receiving at least twenty words per minute before concentration-

These are the words I particularly desire to emphasize - but men who are evidently suitable, and who can produce satisfactory evidence that they are in the way of becoming proficient operators may be accepted.

Senator KEATING:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was quoting from a communication from the Chief of the Ordnance Department in Melbourne to the Commandant of the 6th Military District. That communication stressed the urgency which existed for procuring wireless operators, office telegraphists, railway telegraph operators, operators and telegraph line repairers, and suggested that the press might be used to make known the need for such members in our Expeditionary Force. It further stated that, whilst the test of their ability should be the capacity to send and receive at least twenty words a minute, men who were suitable, and were “ in the way of becoming proficient operators” would be accepted. That seems very distinct and clear. It was after these facts had become known to Alderman Meagher, and others who. were interested in assisting members of the Wireless Class in Tasmania, that that gentleman wrote to Lieutenant Medhurst a somewhat lengthy letter, of which I shall quote only the portion that is relevant to the grievance which has arisen out of these circumstances. That letter is dated 23rd November, 1917, and is addressed to Lieutenant Medhurst, O.C. Signalling Corps. Referring to the class of . wireless operators in training, Mr. Meagher says -

This class, consisting of about fifteen mem bers, has been in operation about two months, and, as you are aware, excellent progress has been made, the membersevincing great interest and enthusiasm in the work. One member has enlisted in the Flying Corps, and several others are now equal to the test required to enable them to join the signalling unit abroad. The other members are showing evidence of fitness to be allowed to enter camp almost forthwith. My object incommunicating with you now is to urge that every man in the class who is considered by you, in conformity to a circular recently issued by the State Recruiting Committee, to be likely to become efficient in a reasonable period, should be taken into camp. The men are anxious to go into camp, and have already passed medical examination.

It will be seen, therefore, that, according to a communication from Headquarters, it was only necessary that the men should be “in the way of becoming proficient operators “ to insure their acceptance.

Senator Pearce:

– To the class.

Senator KEATING:

– That fact was made public. Alderman Meagher, in communicating with Lieutenant Medhurst, directed attention to it, and urged that the men who had already passed the medical examination, and had exhibited a likelihood of becoming proficient within a reasonable period, should be taken into camp. He further said -

All that the members of the class need now is proper facilities for constant practice for about two months, and they cannot get that under existing conditions. The men are doing all that can be expected of them, and now it is the duty of the military authorities to do the rest. Could not arrangements be made in Claremont for finishing training there? I shall be glad to help.

Later on, I find a communication to the Officer Commanding 31st Signalling Corps, signed C. A. C, Captain, Acting D.A.A. and Quartermaster-General. It is evidently a telegram. It is dated 1st December, 1917, and reads -

If you will certify that these men arc able to send and receive twenty words per minute, or that they may become proficient operators [vide attached circular), they may enlist and go out to Claremont Camp at once.

Subsequently the’ certificate was forthcoming, and these men went into the Claremont Camp. Whilst there, in addition to giving their time, some little expense was incurred by Alderman Meagher and others in providing them with equipment and other facilities to enable them to pursue their training. The men were subjected to an examination, and a number of them failed to pass the test of twenty words a minute for sending and receiving, but succeeded in doing from ten to fourteen words per minute. Later on it was intimated to the men that, though they had enlisted for the Signalling Corps, they had not passed the prescribed test, and consequently they would have to go into the general ranks. It was at this stage - just prior to the reassembling of the Parliament after Easter - that the matter was brought under my notice. Happening to be in Melbourne at the time, I told Alderman Meagher that the Minister was very busy, and that, as he. had a number of details to attend to, especially in connexion with the opening of Parliament, he was more than ordinarily busy. However, I succeeded in making an appointment for Alderman Meagher with the Secretary of the Defence Department, and, as a result of that interview, I understand that the Department took up the attitude that faith would be kept with those who had enlisted as signallers, and had gone into the class under the conditions originally laid down. They would, therefore, go for ward as signallers, but if they went forward as ordinary members of the Australian Imperial Force it would be incumbent upon them to re-enlist.

Until the matter was raised by Senator Guy a couple of weeks ago, during my temporary absence in Tasmania, I understood that that was the position. I think I am right in believing that so far as the original members were concerned, faith . was to be kept with them. But last week a number of these youths - eleven in all - were suddenly notified in the Claremont Camp that they were to go into the Wireless Corps, in Moore Park, Sydney. The notice given to them must have been exceedingly short, because I was speaking to one of them in Launceston last Monday week, and he, with ten others, wa3 in Melbourne on the following Thursday. These men arrived by the Rotomahana, went on to Sydney by the afternoon train, reaching that city on Friday, and within two hours of their arrival were subjected to a further test. The majority of them were then told that they had failed to reach the standard of twenty words per minute. . Two of their number evidently satisfied the examiners. These were youths who had previously had experience as telegraph operators in the Department of the Postmaster-General. But amongst the remainder are some who had enlisted under the conditions originally laid down. When they represented that they had enlisted as wireless men only, and had been given to understand that though they might not reach the standard of twenty words per minute in sending and receiving, yet if they showed a likelihood of becoming efficient they would be given an opportunity to continue their training-

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The very document which the honorable senator has read shows that if they did that, they would be allowed to enter the class.

Senator KEATING:

Senator KEATING:

– I know of cases where they have held these positions for much longer than that, though I am not in a position to say whether the men whom I have in mind were in Citizen Force camps or in camps of the Australian

Infantry Force. I believe that some of these men were in the Claremont Camp.

Senator Pearce:

– I do not think there is a Citizen Force officer left in an Australian Imperial Force camp. Practically all officers now in Australian Imperial Force camps are returned men.

Senator KEATING:

– I hope, from one point of view, that I am wrong. But the people are asking, “Why does not So-and-so, who has seen active service, and has shown his merit, get such a position as is given to some one else who has not been to the Front, and who is also in receipt of a good income from a business?” There is justification for such remarks unless I have been misinformed, or have not been accurately observant.

Senator Pearce:

– The grievance of these mcn as submitted to me is not as the honorable senator has stated it. They complain that sergeants-major who were not allowed to go to the Front have been given honorary commissions, whilst those allowed to go have been away, and that when they come back they revert to their old rank, whilst the others retain their honorary rank.

Senator KEATING:

– I have heard that complaint, but I have had it brought under my notice that ordinary civilians are now holding military commissions, not for eight days, but for a considerable time, and that they are men who, though qualified and eligible for active service, did not go to the Front. These men are now senior in rank to men who have been away and obtained promotion abroad to a higher rank. That is where the shoe pinches. The Minister will remember that two or three months ago I wrote to him personally upon one aspect of the question. I believe that he is out to do justice wherever there is a call for it. Prompted by that belief, I drew his attention to a matter to which he gave most prompt and full consideration. This other matter has been brought under my notice only recently, and I feel that if the facts are such as have been stated to me, and the Minister is satisfied upon that point, he will see that a system more consonant with justice will be adopted.

I asked a few questions to-day in connexion with the Department of the PostmasterGeneral. I shall not anticipate the replies to them, but it seems to me that there is a disposition in that Depart ment at the present time to overcentralize. We are .constantly confronted with instances of the evils of centralization. The postal, telegraphic and telephonic services are year in and year out, in peace and in war, perhaps the most important of all the public services of the Commonwealth, because they link together all the peoples and industries of this widely-scattered community. If there is one Department more than another coming within the Commonwealth domain which could help in the decentralization of population so necessary in Australia, it is the Post and Telegraph Department. I think that more might be done than has been done in the past to give facilities to country districts in the matter of mail services and telegraphic and telephonic communication.

If newspaper reports are to be relied upon, the Postmaster-General has recently stated his intention to establish an institute in Melbourne. I believe that corresponding institutes are contemplated for all the State capitals. They are to have for their object the training of men of the Department in the performance of their duties, so as to enable them to discharge those duties with the greatest measure of success, in the interests of the Department and of the public. What I should like to know is, If such institutes are to be established in the State capitals, what is to be the position of post-office officials in country districts, and in places like Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Toowoomba, Launceston, or Burnie? Are the proposed advantages and facilities to attain efficiency to be confined only to those who have the good fortune to be employed in the metropolitan centres? I believe that not only should the operation of the Post and Telegraph Department have a decentralizing tendency, but so far as it is itself concerned, officers employed in other than metropolitan areas should be given the same advantages as those who are comfortably billeted in Melbourne, Sydney, and the other State capitals.

It is stated that apart altogether from the work of training, those attending the proposed institute will have opportunities of recreation, gymnastic exercises, billiards, chess, and other games. I do not suppose that it will be practicable to provide that country post-office officials should be given an opportunity to play a game of billiards free or at a nominal fee. If these institutes are to be established, the claims of officials employed outside the metropolitan area should be considered.

Relating to this matter is another which the Postmaster-General has foreshadowed. It is suggested that instead of the entrance examinations now provided for in the case of persons desiring to enter the Post and Telegraph Department, there shall be substituted a system of nomination by school-masters and others outside the service. Whilst I do not for a moment suggest that examinations such as are resorted to in connexion with the Public Service here, with the Indian Public Service and other similar organizations, provide an infallible and final test of capacity or ability, I do believe that they represent the test which is attended by the fewest disadvantages, and are preferable to any other method yet devised. They were deliberately adopted as part of our Public Service Act in 1902, and it seems to me that if the Post and Telegraph Department is to adopt another system, it will necessitate an alteration of the Public Service Act in that regard.

This leads me to say that I believe that the Government must shortly take into consideration the complete re-casting of the Public Service Act. When the Act was passed in 1902 the conditions were totally different from what they are to-day. New and unexpected conditions have developed with remarkable rapidity. Some few years back the administrative rule of preference to unionists was introduced. That has its bearing on the Public Service Act in so far as it touches the provisions relating to temporary employment. Later in connexion with the Repatriation movement came the adoption of the principle of preference to returned soldiers. When that scheme for the appointment of returned soldiers to the Public Service is sought to be given effect to, difficulties arise about the age limit for entry into the Service, so that there has to be<a modification in that regard. Difficulties arise, also, as to the necessity for examination for entry into the Service, because a man of mature years, who has served with the Australian Forces at the Front, and returned, can hardly be asked to “ devil “ up again, if, indeed, he ever did it before, some of the subjects in which it would be necessary for him to qualify in order to pass an examination for entry into the Public Service. If he were asked to do that it would be quite possible, in many cases, to nullify, to all intents and purposes, the opportunity offered for entry into the Service under the system of preference to returned soldiers. That is another condition of affairs which may necessitate a review of the fundamental principles of the Public Service Act. More recently a Bill was introduced to take out of the Public Service a large number of the civil clerks in the Defence Department, and the latest move is the intention foreshadowed by the Postmaster-General, to have a special method of entry into the Postal service, and a special method of treating postal employees. Taking all these elements into consideration, the time has arrived when the Government will have to consider a future Public Service policy for the Commonwealth, and instead of nibbling at the Act here, or taking a piece off it there, or hacking right through it somewhere else, we should have it brought right up to date, so that it may express in all its details the considered opinion of the time in which we are upon all matters contained within the four corners of such enactments. During the recess Ministers may possibly have time to give some consideration to the necessity for such a measure, and the lines upon which it should be drawn for submission to Parliament.

You referred, Mr. Deputy President, in your speech, to the Northern Territory, a subject which, although inspiring, is not under present conditions very cheering. That subject demands the most earnest and the earliest consideration by the Federal Government and Parliament. I am afraid that since we took the Territory over, and now, we have been and are making a mess of it, and I believe there will be no satisfactory policy for it until its administration, so far under Commonwealth conditions, has been thoroughly investigated - until we see what have been our shortcomings in administration, what have been their causes, what should be the line of policy for the future, and the best and readiest means of getting on to such a line of policy as will make for progress. There must be a most exhaustive inquiry, and if any one better versed in the affairs of the Territory and its administration feels disposed to test the feeling of the Senate as to the appointment of a competent tribunal, Commission, or other body, to investigate that administration, I promise him my support.

Senator Bakhap referred this morning to a matter in which he and I were personally interested, but which he said, to some extent, concerned all public men, and, perhaps, a little more directly, all the members of the Senate. So far as I heard him, he gave a reasonable and fair statement of the position. I shall not recapitulate what he said, and it is far from my intention to say anything to anticipate further developments, which may involve, not only the people he has named, but several .others. I have only to add to what he said these facts : Prom the moment the publication of which he and £ complained appeared, there was only one obligation upon us. It was our duty to ourselves, to the Senate, to our constituents, to the State we represent, and to the Commonwealth, to have the matter cleared up. If the other side could prove their infamous charges against us, they should be given the opportunity of doing so. We gave them the opportunity. We instituted proceedings within a week, I think, after the publication appeared and had been seen by us. We instituted them just before the election came on ; that was at the end of April or the beginning of May. The case did not come on for hearing until the following. 6th November. In the interim, proceedings in connexion with pleadings were going on. It was open to the defendants at any time during that long period to apologize, to express regret, or to withdraw the accusation, but they did nothing of the kind. There was no peace by negotiation so far as they were concerned. They made no offer and no attempt at an offer. Instead, they asked, through their representatives, for further time to plead. I said “Give them all the time they want,” and when their extended period of pleading was about to elapse they asked for leave to plead more than one matter. My instructions on behalf of Senator -Bakhap and myself were, “Let them plead anything they like,” and. in conformity with that, they pleaded, I think, every plea which it was open to a defendant to plead, in the desperate hope of getting us on one string or other. In addition, they wanted adjournments, and, with the exception of the last application they made for an adjournment, I think everything they asked for they got. Their last application for an adjournment was out of the question. The Senate were up for a few weeks, we were to meet again late in November, and we could not have returned to Tasmania again to go on with the case on the 26th of that month. Apart from that, I had just got word that they were conducting their liquidation proceedings, and probably they wanted the extra adjournment to enable them to complete them. I mention all these circumstances to show that Senator Bakhap was right in saying that we felt it our duty to ourselves, to the Senate, to the State of Tasmania, and to the Commonwealth, to have the matter cleared up. We gave them every opportunity, conceded everything they asked in the progress of the case, and honorable senators have heard how they met us. We went to the Court at Hobart,’ and, legally speaking, so far as the case was concerned, there was no obligation on either of us to go into the witness-box. All we had to do for our case was to put in the article and prove it as being published by the defendant company, and the onus of proof then rested upon them. We did not take that course. We went into the box, and gave formal evidence, identifying ourselves with the plaintiffs, and denying the truth of the allegations, and then presented ourselves for crossexamination. Had we not done that, their eloquent counsel from Melbourne would have had nothing on which to talk in their behalf. The only case he sought to establish was based on our crossexamination. We decided, as it were, to go up to the cannon’s mouth, and let them use what powder they had behind it. We subjected ourselves to crossexamination voluntarily and willingly, because we did not want- anybody to say that we shirked it. We were subjected to a lengthy and exhaustive examination, and all the counsel for the defendants had to base an appeal to the jury upon was the series of baseless suppositions involved in the questions that he asked us. With-, out those questions he would have been thrown back, for his address to the jury, solely and wholly upon the article itself. Senator Bakhap has told the Senate the treatment that has since been meted out to us. If that is British fighting, there would not he much to choose between it and the German method. If it is not repudiation, I do not know what it is, yet this censor of public morality, of Parliaments, and of public bodies generally, deals with a resolution arrived at within the last few months by the Victorian Railways Union in Melbourne, and from that draws a moral and points the path of duty to the Government. He tells the Government that, if they take certain action, there will be no longer be heard in the land any suggestion of repudiation of public or private debt - this from the man who has flagrantly and openly repudiated a debt which a jury of the Commonwealth decided that he owed.

Senator Needham this evening, in criticising the Government and their policy, made detailed reference to the number of days on which Parliament has sat. I do not know whether he was really serious, or echoing an utterance that he had heard or read elsewhere, or indulging in the gentle art of “ legpulling,” but I am one, at any rate, who thinks that it is most fallacious and absurd to measure the achievement of a Government by the number of days that Parliament is actually sitting. If this Parliament were to sit all the year round, and the Minister had to come in and give his attention all the time to the consideration of utterances by honorable senators, I venture to say that he would lose practically the whole of that time from necessary administrative work in his Department. I have had some experience as a Minister, ‘close upon four years of it at the table, and I know that the measure of a Minister’s work is not in the least degree to be judged by his presence or absence from this chamber. At times when a Minister is out of this chamber he is far busier than when he is here; and often when he is at the Ministerial table he is aching for an opportunity to get away to meet the officers of his Department, who are loaded with papers bearing upon all kinds of matters, and to which he must give his attention. It is easy enough for honorable senators to rise, and any day and every day to talk on matters that come before the Senate, and to get reported in Hansard, with, perhaps, an- other line in the index, of that volume. I have even known of electors who set out to measure the amount of work done by their representative in Parliament by putting an inch rule over the index in Hansard; but I am rather surprised that any newspaper, especially any journal with a staff well versed in parliamentary practice, and thoroughly conversant with the functions of Ministers, should ever attempt to inculcate the idea that the measure of work done by a Minister is to be determined by -his presence at the Ministerial table when Parliament is assembled-

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

.- This is the only place where free speech is permitted in the whole of the Commonwealth on certain subjects.

Senator KEATING:

– I do not go with the honorable senator to that extent.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Colonel O’loghlin. - It is a fact.

Senator KEATING:

– We must, so far as the administrative and instructional branches are concerned, unless we are going to allow the rank won on the field to determine the number of captains, majors, and colonels that we are to have on our staffs here. But if a man comes back with a higher rank than he had previously, he is allowed to retain it as an honorary rank, having won it in the field. That is the difficulty with which we are confronted, and I am not going to be dogmatic as to the way in which we shall settle it. I have given the Military Board certain lines for their guidance, and I have asked them to put before me a scheme which will enable us to do justice all round, and at the same time to keep our contract with the graduates from the Military College who are serving us to-day.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– For some considerable time I have endeavoured to steer clear of controversial politics as far as possible, and it is not my intention to enter upon that field to-night. This is not the place in which members are accustomed to throw bouquets at each other, but I cannot refrain from complimenting Senator Keating upon the splendid advice which he tendered this afternoon, not only to members of the Senate, but also to persons outs de, who are anxious to plunge the Allies into a premature discussion of peace. No better advice has been given in this Chamber.

I was also glad to hear the few remarks which he made concerning the Northern Territory. To my mind the development of our Federal Territories is one of the most pressing problems with which we are confronted.

I am pleased, too, to be in accord with my colleague, Senator Lt.:Col. O’Loghlin, in his claim that Australia has done magnificently during this war. Nobody will attempt to deny that the Australian soldier is second to none on the face of God’s earth, and that Australia’s contribution to the war nas been a magnificent one. But that is no reason why we should relax our efforts. No man can look at the map of Europe to-day and claim that the Englishspeaking race and civilization generally is not in dire peril. Consequently, it is the duty of every man and woman to urge the people of Australia to still further effort until the war has been brought to a successful conclusion.

– It is more important to connect north and south. It was recognised that both works could not be undertaken at the same time, and I think that it is a pity that the more important railway was not constructed first. From data in my possession, and in the records of the Federal and South Australian Parliament evidence might be given of the valuable character of the country through which the north and south railway would run.. Men living at Alice Springs and in the Macdonnell Ranges will tell you that the country there has a good rainfall on the tablelands, and would grow wheat abundantly. I do not know whether it would grow wheat abundantly, hut we know that it will grow the best cattle and horses to be found in Australia, because we see them in Adelaide and elsewhere every day. In addition such a railway would open up a tremendously rich mineral field of gold, copper, and practically every other mineral, because Central Australia is admitted to be particularly rich in minerals of various kinds.

All this wealth is lying undeveloped because we are obsessed with the necessity of winning the war, and it is claimed that every £1 that we can raise in Australia must be spent upon winning the war. I say that that is rubbish. The money required to construct the northsouth railway could be as easily procured as was the money expended on the east-west railway, or that found for any other necessary public work. I urge upon the Government the necessity of making a start with this work. No one can say how the war will end; but we should put our house in order, and see that something is done to-day, so that when the war is over we shall be in a position to open up this tremendous area of ours in the Northern Territory, which belongs to the people of Australia, and is peculiarly the charge of this Parliament. There is no representative of the Northern Territory in this Parliament, and no one cares a snap of the fingers for the residents in the Northern Territory and the other Territories belonging to the Commonwealth. We do not heaT the voice of the people of the Territory, and, until some provision is made for their political representation, it is the duty of this Parliament to see that nothing is overlooked that will assist the development of that country.

Honorable senators have heard me on the Northern Territory once or twice before. I am not anxious to repeat myself. I had the pleasure some time ago to spend some weeks in the Territory. I subsequently mentioned here some of its needs which came under my observation when I was there. I had the distinguished honour of a reply to my remarks from the Administrator of the Territory, Dr. Gilruth, and by the adoption of a very unusual procedure, that reply was laid on the table of the Senate. Ordinarily a reply to remarks of a member of Parliament is given through the Minister; but the reply of the Administrator of the Northern Territory was laid on the table of the Senate as a paper, and printed. I am not taking exception to that. I am glad that it happened, because it gave me a further opportunity to deal with matters with which I had previously dealt. The Administrator took some of my criticisms as personal to himself. I did not know to what extent the Administrator or the Government were responsible for the state of affairs that I found there. In speaking on the Territory, I was not blaming either, but simply giving an account of things as I found them.

Since then the Northern Territory has not been dealt with as I think it should have been. There have been acts which appear to me to be acts of injustice, committed there. I am concerned on thi3 account, because the result is te discourage good men who go to the Territory, determined to stay there for a number of years. When a man has not been fairly treated in the Northern Territory, it is not unnatural that he should take the earliest opportunity to apply for a transfer south. I know of men who were in the Northern Territory, and were almost delighted when the war broke out. Some of them were over the military age; but they applied for positions in different Departments in the south. Some went away to the war, and others, who were beyond the fighting age, went away as munition workers ; but the result has been that these valuable public servants have left the Northern Territory, and it is the poorer on that account. Had they been better treated while there, I am confident that many of them would be in the Territory to-day.

I take up the last report of the Administrator, and at page 4 I find that he mentions the appointment of a Director of Lands. Honorable senators will remember that a Mr. Ryland, from Queensland, was appointed Director of Lands. After filling the position for’ a considerable time, Mr. Ryland was dismissed from the Service, and a gentleman named Day, who occupied a prominent position in South Australia, and who had been transferred to the Territory was appointed Temporary Director of Lands. He was a surveyor, and. was away carrying out survey work, and so could not give much attention to the question of land settlement. During that period Mr. Worgan, chief draughtsman, and another old South Australian public servant, who had been fifteen years in the Territory, attended to the duties of the office. The Administrator in this report compliments Mr. Worgan in these terms -

I have to express my appreciation of the cheerful and painstaking manner in which Mr. Worgan, Chief Draughtsman, carried out the duties of the office of Director of Lands and Chief” Surveyor during the long interregnum.

That is a reference to the period which elapsed between the dismissal of Mr. Ryland and the appointment as Director of Lands of Mr. Trower, who is another Queenslander. I want to know why Mr. Worgan was overlooked in connexion with this appointment. The course followed was, as a matter of fact, contrary to the Public Service regulations, and was certainly not calculated to make a satisfied staff. It would not be tolerated in any other part of Australia, but anything seems to be good enough for the Northern Territory. Mr. Worgan has been resident in the Territory for fifteen years, and between the dismissal of Mr. Ryland and the appointment of Mr. Trower he has carried out the duties of Director of Lands, and yet he is overlooked when the appointment to that office is made. I do not know anything about Mr. Trower, and I hold no brief for Mr. Worgan, but I do think that, in view of the work the latter has done in the Territory, an officer of his standing should not have been overlooked. I do not know whether he had an opportunity of applying for the position, but I doubt very much whether he had. At any rate, Mr. Worgan, like many other good officers of the Territory, has been very much disappointed, and he may in the near future apply for a transfer south.

There is another man whose name has been before the Senate once or twice, he is a capable and competent officer. He certainly has his faults, and possibly he deserved severe treatment because of certain indiscretions of which he was guilty while in the Service. I refer to Dr. Jensen. There can be no doubt that he did splendid work during the five years he was in the Northern Territory. The bulletins he issued and his reports and plans of mine-fields, &c, in the possession of the Home and Territories Department, as the result of his work, prove him to have been an exceedingly capable officer. He is now doing very important work for the Queensland Government.

Senator Keating:

– Several pretty capable officers seem to have been there, but we seem to have lost them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is so, and that is why I agree with the honorable senator that an inquiry is required. There must he some reason for all these changes of competent officers. A considerable portion of Dr. Jensen’s work has been lost, because the reports of his last work in the Northern Territory have not been finished and supplied to the Commonwealth Government. During 1915 and 1916, Dr. Jensen, Mr. Winters, and Mr. Gray carried out an extensive geological sur vey of the country from Bridge Creek to the McKenzie River. All these men are now out of the Commonwealth Service. Dr. Jensen was the chief geologist, Mr. Winters was the assistant geologist, and Mr. Gray was a surveyor. Mr. Gray now holds an important position in, I think, the Great Cobar mine. He was not good enough for the Northern Territory, but is quite good enough for one of the biggest mines in Australia. Mr. Winters is doing something in Sydney. The reports of that section of their work were finished and are available, hut later on Dr. Jensen carried out the work from the McKenzie River, examining the country right out to the Coronet Hills. He examined all the mining belt practically from Bridge Creek to Pine Creek, or probably even nearer Darwin. His reports and plans were ready for publication. Almost everything was in order, and he could have finalized the reports on his geological work, covering an area of something like 1,000 square miles, but he was dismissed. The reports have not been furnished to the Department, and that valuable work has been lost to the Commonwealth. .. I hope the Government will see if it is possible for the reports to be obtained even now, so that the work of this expert may not be lost to us, because, whatever Dr. Jensen’s faults may have been, no one questions his ability as a geologist and surveyor. Those reports would have furnished valuable data for the future mining industry of the north, as they cover practically the whole northern mineral belt. No mention is made of the subject in Dr. Gilruth’s report. He dismisses Dr. Jensen in a paragraph in which he says that Dr. Jensen was guilty of having done something in the way of criticising officials, which he ought not to have done, and that he was guilty of improper and disloyal conduct, winding up with these words, “As a result, Dr. Jensen was requested by the Minister to resign. He refused to do so. He was ultimately dismissed from the Service.” That is how Dr. Jensen was turned out of the Northern Territory, after his five years of valuable service. Much of that time Dr. Jensen spent out on the hills, living like a blackfellow. All he had was a quart pot, a bag of flour, and a black boy to keep him company. He went out and lived almost like the blacks in order to do bis scientific work in a country that was very difficult to travel over; and this is how he was treated. According to the report, a good portion of his work is credited to others, and the subject is dismissed with a paltry reference that would certainly not secure him a situation in any other part of the world. All this is an evidence of paltry spite on the part of somebody, which is hard to understand, and certainly ought to be condemned by any one who knows anything about the Territory. Two other officers, Mr. T. J. Beckett, who was Protector of Aborigines, and Mr. R. J. Winters, who was Dr. Jensen’s assistant, were discharged. The Administrator gives as a reason: “In the interests of economy the position of Chief Inspector of Aborigines and of Assistant Geologist were recently abolished, and Messrs. T. J. Beckett and R. J. Winters respectively left the Service.” Their combined salaries did not amount to ?800 per year, yet they were dismissed in the interests of economy! I can imagine that the consequent saving will put the finances of the Northern Territory on a sound basis. As a matter of fact, neither of those gentlemen was dismissed in the interests of economy, according to the reasons given to them. Mr. Beckett was under suspension for a good many weeks before he was dismissed. He was fighting the Administrator, who was then in Melbourne, and the Government Secretary, who was then in Darwin - fighting them for his life. I have not been able to discover why Mr. Winters’ services were dispensed with, but if there is one country on earth that requires a competent and capable protector of aborigines - and Mr. Beckett had the name of being one of the best - or the services of a capable geologist, it is the Northern Territory, where so much scientific work has to be done. Mr. Winters was considered to be a. very capable geologist. He was merely informed that his position was abolished because it was unnecessary. He was even refused the customary certificate as to his character and capabilities for the work he was doing. When his services were dispensed with he asked for a certificate to enable him to apply for any position that became vacant, but he was refused a certificate from the Department. Ultimately one was sent to him by Mr. Oliver, the Director of Mines, who is now occupying Dr. Jensen’s old position, but under whom Mr. Winters never served. To show how this Department, not only in Darwin, but in Melbourne, deals with its employees who are thrown on one side, the following is the letter Mr. Winters received from the Home and Territories Department: -

Home and Territories Department,

Melbourne, 2nd June, 1917.

Mr. R. J. Winters, 85 KingStreet, Newtown,

Sydney.

Referring to your letter of the 12th April last, and my reply thereto of the 19th idem, I now forward herewith a certificate in regard to your services in the Northern Territory.

Atlee Hunt, Secretary.

Department of Mines, Darwin, 16th May, 1917.

This is to certify that Mr. R. J. Winters was associated with this Department for a period extending from November, 1912, to the 6th February, 1917, when his position was abolished by the Honorable the Minister for Home and Territories.

From November, 1912, to 19th March, 1913, Mr. Winters was clerk in this Department; on the latter date he was appointed acting assistant geologist.
On the 1st July, 1913, Mr. Winters was appointed assistant geologist.
As stated above, Mr. Winters’ position was abolished on the 6th February, 1917.

During the above period his duties were carried out to the satisfaction of the Chief Government Geologist.

T. G. Oliver,

Director of Mines.

Honorable senators may be sure that Mr. Winters did not leave the Territory with any gratitude in his heart towards the authorities either there or here. But that is not the worst. In December, 1915, he was sent to Sydney on departmental work, but was refused payment of his fare and expenses. The reason assigned for that treatment is set out in the following statement : -

During the dry season of 1915 Dr. Jensen, G. J. Gray, and myself were engaged on an extensive bit of geological work in the Margaret River district, the results of which have been published as a Bulletin. In connexion with our investigations, representative rocks of the different areas were collected and classified in Darwin. In order that our determinations of the nature and origin of the various rockforming minerals of the different areas be verified, it was necessary to do this microscopically by means of micro, slides made from each of a particular series of rocks so fine in texture and alteration, as is characteristic of the pre-Cambrian formation of the Territory. We had a fine microscope in the Darwin office, but no means of cutting rock sections. Dr. Jensen, as Chief Government Geologist, asked me to undertake the work of preparing the rock slides at the Sydney University, where’ there is a complete plant for doing the necessary cutting. Acting Professor Cotton was communicated with, and permission was granted by him for me to work there for the Department. At the beginning of the wet season in December, 1915, when our work on the field was finished, Dr. Jensen applied to the Administrator for permission to send me to Sydney to carry out this work. At this time I had been in the Territory three years, and was anxious to carry out the work for the Department and at the same time to have an opportunity of seeing my people.

The Administrator sent for Dr. Jensen and I and the. matter was discussed, and it was decided that I was to proceed to Sydney by the s.s. Montoro on the 12th December, 1915, and return by the first steamer at the end of January, and whilst in that city to put in the whole of the time on the Government work. I was to apply on my return for refund of money paid for steamer fares and out-of-pocket expenses.

I took with me a large case of rock specimens, and arrived in Sydney on the 24th December. That afternoon I saw Mr. Cotton, and arranged to work in the laboratory during the Christmas vacation, when the staff were absent on their holidays. Work was commenced on the 27th December, and continued daily (excepting Sundays) from 9 to 5 p.m. until the 29th January, during which time I completed over eighty micro, slides. On the latter date I wired Dr. Jensen that I had finished the work, and received a reply from him instructing me to put in the remaining two days (the return steamer left on the 1st February) interviewing firms and obtaining particulars of laboratory materials for the Darwin office. I carried out these instructions, and returned to Darwin on the 12th February.

Some days later I made an application to the Chief Government Geologist for transmission to the Administrator, asking for a refund of £32 10s. which I had paid for my steamer ticket. This was refused by the Administrator, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Jensen recommended payment, being satisfied that the work I did was of a first class nature.

As I was fully occupied on Government work during the period of my stay in Sydney, I consider I was entitled at least to my steamer fare, but the Administrator contended that, as I had an opportunity of getting a change away from the Territory during the hot season, I should have been satisfied to bear the expense.

This is the kind of treatment that was meted out to a man who spent over two months of his holiday leave doing Government work in Sydney. When he. went back the Administrator not only refused to pay his steamer fare, but also the expenses he had incurred in Sydney. How can we expect to find a contented population in the Northern Territory under such conditions?

I do not want to take up too much time discussing the personal affairs of the Government employees in the Northern Territory, but I want to remind the Senate that in the speech which I made on the 27th September, 1916, I had something to say about many things that were disturbing the public mind in the Territory, and amongst other matters I referred to the Batchelor Farm, which, I pointed out, had sufficient plant lying idle to work a 3,000-acre farm. Dr. Gilruth, in his reply, no doubt thought that he had silenced me when he stated that the area of the farm was 2,560 acres. After all, I did not make a bad guess, because I said the plant was big enough to work a 3,000-acre farm, although, as a matter of fact, I did not know the extent of the property. But, after all, it is not a question of how big a farm may be, so much as how much of the area is being worked with the plant available. This information is contained in the re port by the manager of the farm, Mr. Love, a man who impressed me as being an excellent manager, and I think I expressed my admiration for the amount of work which he got out of the natives. I believe he is doing practically the whole work of the farm with the natives and one white man. In his report to the Administrator, Mr. Love states that the quantity of land being worked amounts to 74 acres. This is one of the matters in connexion with which Dr. Gilruth has endeavoured to deceive this Parliament, because, while he said the farm area was 2,560 acres, he did not mention how much of the land was being worked. Mr. Love’s report gives the details of cultivation as follows: - Rice, 12 acres; maize, 16 acres; amber cane, 5 acres; broom millet, 10 acres; cotton, .10 acres; rape, 6 acres; Sudan grass, 1 acre; bananas, 2 acres; lucerne, 1 acre; onions, acre, and 300 acres of the scrub land sown with grass. Thus, with a plant sufficient to work a 3,000-acre farm, the actual area under cultivation is only 74 acres, although Dr. Gilruth in his reply to my statement gave the impression that the whole area was being worked.

I did intend, also, to deal at some length with the treatment of the aborigines, because I fell foul of Dr. Gilruth on the last occasion, when I said that 25s. a week was an outrageous price to pay to a blackfellows because as soon as he got it he went down to a Chinamen’s den and got 2s. 6d. worth of stuff for his 25s. That was the point I made, but Dr. Gilruth refrained from remarking upon it in his reply. In the course of my remarks I also said that the blacks were not kept under sufficient control, and the health officer, Dr. Jones, a very excellent nian, in his recommendations for the treatment of blacks in the future, indorses every word of what I said. The chief protector, Mr. Carey, who is also Dr. Gilruth’s secretary, likewise supports my view, and Mr. McDonald, who is now in Mr. Beckett’s place in charge of the camp near Darwin, substantiates every word of it. If it were not that I would take up too much time of the Senate, I would read some of these statements in order to have them included in Hansard; but the reports are available for honorable senators or for anybody else who cares to read them.

When speaking on Territory affairs on the last occasion, I dealt with the conditions of the hotels, which constitute a sore point with the residents of Darwin. I had no hesitation in condemning them as being altogether unsuitable, and a disgrace to the Commonwealth Government. I believe that, according to reports we are getting, that they are very little better now, although about £8,000 has been spent upon them. In view of this I do not withdraw one word of what I said. If I could find stronger language in whicli to express my views, I would do so. But I will not give my own opinion. I shall quote some statements which appeared in the local paper, the Northern Territory Times and Gazette, the official publication for Darwin.” Under date, Saturday, 11th May, there appeared a report of a public indignation meeting called in response to a petition signed by over forty residents, to discuss the liquor ordinance. It was presided over by the Mayor, Councillor D. C. Watts, and, summarized, the statements made at the meeting were as follow : -

The Government hotels were nothing short of booze dens, where the worst brands of liquor were sold at extortionate prices.
That bottled beer was unprocurable save through a store.
That the brands stocked in Darwin were seen nowhere in the south, and that southern brands were unknown.
That the putting of dregs of bottled beer, stout, and cordials into draught beer to keep up percentage was scandalous.
That the price of beer was 200 per cent, higher than elsewhere.
That the supervisor was not to blame, but the Administrator, who was called the root of all evil in the Territory.

Finally it was resolved unanimously-

That this public meeting of the citizens oi Darwin, in the Territory, recognises that the failure of the present administration to put hotel business on a satisfactory basis from a public stand-point is due to the continual interference of the Administrator in this Department, and the hampering of his expert.

That it demands the interference of the Commonwealth Government forthwith, so thai the -State hotel business should be put on a satisfactory basis, and not left to the idiosyncrasies of the present Administration.

That patrons be supplied with liquor oi various brands as in other hotels.

That if bulk whisky be supplied to the public a proper plant for breaking down be immediately installed, and not the present killstonedead method.

That this meeting recognises the difficulties

Hilder which the supervisor is labouring.

It was also decided - That, as various grievances aru continually recurring in the Territory, it is imperative that an elective advisory Board be appointed forthwith to report to the Minister- the conditions appertaining here.

Senator GUY:

– I had the Act turned up, and the very section in it which makes provision in the direction I have indicated was pointed out to me. But I do not think that it was ever intended that such a condition should apply.

This afternoon . Senator Keating referred to the Public -Service Act. I shall not make more than a very brief reference to the conditions that apply under that Act. It provides that an officer with twenty years of service is entitled to six months’ furlough or six months’ pay. But if he has only nineteen years of service to his credit evidently he is entitled to nothing. This matter came under my notice in this way: A very capable, honest, and industrious officer of the Commonwealth recently died in Launceston. His service extended over nineteen years and some months. Whatever may be the difficulty in the way, I hope that his widow will be compensated, because the officer was not receiving a large salary. But if an employee of the Commonwealth is entitled to anything after twenty years’ service, surely he ought to be entitled to something . after nineteen years, or even ten years’ service ! If he is entitled to something after twenty years’ service, he certainly ought to be entitled to more after forty years’ service. It seems to me that the allowance should be graded in some way. In Tasmania the allowance is made, proportionate to an officer’s term of service. I mention this matter in the hope that something will be done in the case of this particular officer, who died comparatively young. Had he remained in the Tasmanian Public Service he would, upon his retirement, have been entitled to so much for each year of service. But because of his transfer to the Commonwealth, and because he had not quite twenty years of service to his credit, he was entitled to nothing.

I entirely concur in the sentiments which were expressed yesterday by Senator Gardiner in relation to terms of peace. In my very first utterance in this Chamber I said that I hated war as I hated sin.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Do we not all hate war?

Senator GUY:

– I hope so. I abhor that school of thought which glories in war, and which affirms that the more warlike nations are the greatest nations. Honorable senators know the school of thought to which I refer. I have no sympathy with it. But while listening last night to the utterances of Senator

Bakhap, who referred to the present war as being a war of science, and who spoke of the production of destructive gases, the thought flashed across my mind that he was supplying a very good argument, not for his own case, but for mine. Possibly it is a good thing that I did not try to become a chemist, as I might have blown myself up. I remember that even when I was going to school I used to think that if ever- war was to be prevented in this world it would be through some one discovering a powerful gas that would kill all life on the Front. That idea seems very near realization. War has now become a fight between scientists and chemists, and it is not improbable that in the near future we shall have some one producing a gas so destructive that all life will simply wither up under it. That would end . the war, but it would mean a very bad time for the armies in the field if one had a weapon of that kind to use against the other.

Some time or other we have to meet our opponents in conference. The longer we delay to do so the greater the number of human lives that will be lost. Some persons say that this is not the time for peace negotiations. That may be so from our point of view ; but if it is not the time for us because we are underneath, it will not be the time for our opponents when they are underneath. I hope to see the war brought to a termination. I hope that before very long we shall have negotiations of some kind with our opponents. If they. are not prepared to meet us, we must go on with the war, and if they are not prepared to agree to reasonable terms we must continue the struggle.

– I am not aware of that. I am pretty confident that the prices- are the same now as they were three monthsago.

Senator GUY:

– I have sent the case along to him, and trust that he will act.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– As I have no doubt you are aware, sir, a Select Committee was appointed by the Senate to deal with the question of intoxicating liquors in relation to the soldiers. That Committee has met, drawn up its first progress report, and presented it to the Senate. The Government have accepted one of the two recommendations. Senator Millen said the Government was anxious, before adopting the second recommendation-

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

Givens). - Order! The honorable senator must not discuss the report, because a motion for its adoption is already on the notice-paper. .

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I merely wished to point out that the Minister gave as one reason why -the Government had not yet decided to adopt the second recommendation, that the Committee had not finished its labours. One reason why the Committee has not finished its labours is that it is of the opinion that it has not money enough to do so. As Chairman of the Committee, I have sent on to you a statement of the amount the Committee deems necessary to enable it to finish its work. You have been good enough, according to a letter I received from you, to send that letter on to the Government. Up to the present, I have received no reply from the Government. I therefore, take it that the Government have not yet replied as to whether the Committee is to have the necessary money or not.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is correct.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– As a member of the Committee I should not be prepared to attach my name to a final report unless we were in a position, by having the necessary funds placed at our disposal, to make what I consider to be a full inquiry. I know there are reasons possibly why money may not be available. I can quite understand that if a Committee are extravagant the Government would naturally decline to place any more money at their disposal to prosecute their inquiries, especially if there was a suggestion that they were throwing about money in tips to people with a recklessness which perhaps an Eastern potentate might envy. I think, myself, that if a Committee were extravagant, money ought not to be granted to them.

The press, I believe, have expressed disapproval of the expenditure of money for Select Committees in general and this Committee in particular; but the press are sometimes prone to find fault with Parliament and the way in which Parliament spends its money, and I remember on one of those, shall I say, rather rare occasions when you yourself were good enough to come down to this Chamber and speak to us, you used these words -

Instead of this continual vomiting-

There is something refreshing about that word - of abuse upon the refreshment room and every other institution of Parliament, these newspapers would do well to make themselves better acquainted with the facts, and be a little more fair and just in their criticism.

These are not my words, but words which you, yourself, were good enough to use on one of the occasions to which I have referred. And I take it that your remarks, applying to criticism of the refreshment room and every other institution of Parliament, included Select Committees, which, of course, are part of the institution of Parliament. Personally, I do not worry a great deal what the newspapers may say concerning the doings of Parliament. If Parliament is extravagant, I think the press are justified in criticism ; but, whether I approve of their actions or not, they would please themselves, and, if they thought fit, would criticise Parliament. .What you, yourself, said in regard to this matter is, I think, quite sufficient by way of reply to any such criticism.

On another occasion, however, you, Mr. President, were good enough to say this -

I say advisedly that in all my experience this is the most extravagant Committee that I have known.

You were then referring to the Intoxicants Committee, and, as a member of that Committee, naturally I felt your statement a little more than I would have felt any criticism in the press, for when the President of the Senate, and especially a President who, like yourself, has had great, and varied, and extensive experience, is good enough to say what you said then, the Government might hesitate to grant more money to the Committee. The Government might consider your statement a legitimate reason for withholding funds. I have no doubt that the Government would naturally take notice of what you said about the Committee, and possibly to some extent they are influenced by your statement.

Now I know it is very difficult to compare like with like as regards Select Committees, but I am rather fortunate, I think, in that I am able to some extent to make this comparison. On the 19th August, 1915, a Select Committee of the Senate was appointed to inquire into, and report upon, the conduct of the Deputy Postmaster -General for the State of Tasmania in connexion with ap plications for the removal of the postoffice premises at Mount Balfour, in that State. In the course of their inquiries, members of the Committee went to Tasmania. I have looked up the Committee minutes, and at one meeting over which Senator Long, the Chairman, presided, it was resolved that the Chairman should represent to the President of the Senate that the Committee was of the opinion that members of a Select Committee should be on the same footing with regard to travelling allowances as members of a Royal Commission. The minutes of a subsequent meeting disclosed that the Chairman had seen the President, in compliance with the resolution, regarding the travelling expenses of members of the Committee, and that the President had informed him that he had no power whatever to authorize expenditure beyond what was sanctioned by the practice and custom in respect of all such committees since the Federal Parliament was established; that provision was always made for out-of-pocket expenses, and that, however much he would like to do so, he could take no action which would place that Committee on a different footing from any that had preceded it. Apparently your reply on that occasion was a courteous way of saying you did not approve of the suggestion. You did not say what you would have done if you had had the power, nor did you say that it was not necessary for the Committee to go to Tasmania, or that they could bring their witnesses over to Melbourne. If you had, I venture to say that the Chairman of the Committee would have reported on those lines.

I have had an opportunity of finding out just what the Committee of which I am Chairman spent in Tasmania as compared with the Committee to which I am now referring, and also, to some extent, of comparing the work done. The Committee appointed to inquire into the removal of the Mount Balfour post-office went across to Tasmania, and examined four witnesses. In Hobart they spent two days, and in Launceston one day. They sat in Tasmania on three days, and the total expenditure was £90 0s. 3d. It is only fair to say, however, that witnesses’ fees totalled £27 3s. 6d., leaving the actual expenses of -the Committee at £62 16s. 9d. They were away from Melbourne for nine days, and in Tasmania for seven days, for the examination of four witnesses. Now, the Intoxicants Committee went across to Tasmania, and examined twenty -nine witnesses. We were in Hobart for four days, in Launceston for one day, and we sat in Tasmania on five days, examining twentynine witnesses. Altogether, we were away from Melbourne for eleven days, our total expenditure for the visit was £96 15s. Id., as compared with the outofpocket expenses, if it may be put that way, of the other Committee, amounting to £62 16s. 9d. This amount included, of course, “the expenses of the secretary, Mansard reporter, and messenger, as I have no doubt was also the case with the other Committee, whose expenditure amounted to £62 16s. 9d. I am quite prepared to say that the number of witnesses examined is not a fair criterion of the work done, because four witnesses might take a whole week and be far more important than twenty others. I quite admit all that, but I have no objection whatever to an examination into the importance, time occupied-, and the questions asked of witnesses by either of the Committees. The whole of the cost of the one Committee was £90 3s., including £27 3s. 6d. for witnesses’ expenses. But, in dealing with the four witnesses in the case of the Balfour Committee, the cost amounted to £22 10s. per witness. Our Committee examined twenty-nine witnesses, which, at £96 15s.’ Id., amounted to £3 7s. per witness. But that, of course, is not a fair criterion. One witness might be -of much more importance than twenty others, and one might take longer to examine than all the rest. The earlier Committee was away for nine days. In dealing with the sum of £62 16s. 9d., which was the actual outofpocket expenses, that amounts to £6. 19s. 6d. a day. That is leaving out the sum of £27 3s. 6d. for witnesses’ expenses. The Intoxicants Committee was in Tasmania for eleven days. We spent £96 15s. Id. during that time. That works out at £8 16s. a day, or £1 16s. a day more if we deal merely with the out-of-pocket expenses of the Committee. If, however, the £90 3s. is taken into consideration, which includes witnesses’ expenses and the cost pf the Committee, it equals £10 a day, as against £8 16s. I will now compare the £8 16s. as against the £6 19s. 6d., which will be putting our Committee in the worst possible position, as againstplacing the other in the best light.

It is only fair to say of the Committee of which I was chairman that, while our expenses were £1 16s. a day more, Senator Long, who was one of the members of theother Committee, resided in Hobart, and,, consequently, no expenses could be paid to him, since his Committee was sitting at his place of residence, so we had the expenses of six members of the Committeeagainst five. However much we as a Committee may have failed in our duty, I can only speak in the highest terms of the officers which you, Mr. President, were good enough to placeat our disposal. I asked the secretary who travelled with us to proceed ahead by two days, in order to make arrangements, such as securing witnesses, which I thought would. considerably reduce our time in Tasmania. That consideration should not be overlooked; it is, I think, to our credit.. The actual days of sitting were, in the case of the one Committee, three. Taking: the lowest figure of £62 16s. 9d., that amounts to £20 18s. 8d. per day. Our Committee sat for five days, and with respect to the sum of £96 15s. Id., that amountsto £19 4s., which is also a little to ourcredit. Our Committee sat both morning and afternoon, while the BalfourCommittee was able to get through its work by sitting only in the mornings. Of course, we may have called witnesses unnecessarily, and have summoned more than we should have done; but that was. for the Committee to decide.

There is another matter with which I am rather pleased, viewed from one particular aspect. In the case of the earlierCommittee, there were certain witnessessummoned to appear at points distant from their places of residence. One was called from Balfour to tender evidence at Hobart, and another at Launceston. The reason why I refer to that is because you were good enough in your remarks, sir, to say that “ it would be infinitely cheaper for the Committee to bring to Melbourne from, say, Perth, a few witnesses which it means to examine than for members, accompanied by the secretary and a Hansard reporter, to travel to such places to examine those witnesses.” We were informed by you that the trip to Tasmania was in the nature of a very agreeable peregrinating picnic. I do not think it was very much of a picnic myself, but you said so; therefore, I suppose it was. You said also -

I find, that the Committee’s trip to Tasmania cost about £90. It would have been much cheaper to bring to Melbourne the witnesses to be examined, giving them the trip, instead of having the Committee peregrinating expensively in war-time, when every shilling is required.

As to two of the witnesses called in respect to the Balfour inquiry, they -were heard respectively in Hobart and Launceston, at a cost of £27 3s. 6d. That is an average of £13 l1s. 9d. The Intoxicants Committee called twenty-nine witnesses in Tasmania. On that basis, if we had called them from a distance equal to that between Balfour and Hobart, it would have meant an expenditure of £337 10s. Had we brought them over from Tasmania to Melbourne the cost, of course, would have been still higher. It was necessary to call before the Intoxicants’ Committee, State Commandants, officers in charge of military camps, doctors, and the like. Apart altogether from the question of expense, it was more practicable to examine such important officials at the places in which they were on duty than to call them away for several days to attend at Melbourne. It would have been cheaper for us to travel to the various cities than to bring the many witnesses to Melbourne. I do not think the Balfour Committee was at all extravagant. It did not spend any money beyond that which it was entitled and properly authorized to spend; otherwise you, Mr. President, would not have sanctioned it. This factor must be recognised also. Expenses are higher at hotels than four or five years ago.

There are certain people in Australia who are not anxious that any inquiry should be conducted with respect to the drink traffic. They are interested in the liquor traffic. They have vested interests, which are often a great deal stronger than public interests.

Senator Bakhap:

– There is nothing particularly secret about the drink traffic.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Some people who have shares in breweries, and other such interests, consider it against those interests that there should be any inquiry into the effects of drink; for there is no knowing what the result may be. In the in quiry of which I was chairman there was some evidence which the Government refused to permit to be published in the papers. It was not that it would help Germany to win the war, but the Government thought it better for certain reasons not to make it public. Some evidence given to us was of a character which, although I am a total abstainer, I suggested should not even be reported by our official reporter, but should be heard in camera. That proposal was adopted unanimously, and some of the evidence was actually heard in camera. Dealing with the effects of intoxicants upon our soldiers, I think it will be generally recognised that it is imperative that some reform should be instituted. In this connexion I may be permitted to refer to a sub-leader which was recently published in the Argus - a journal which I am sure nobody will regard as a very strong advocate of total abstinence or as the official organ of temperance organizations. The article in question reads -

Soldiers would very naturally resent restrictions upon the consumption of drink applicable solely to themselves. Nor will the public accept readily a reform which appears to cast any slur upon men to whom, as a whole, the community is in such deep debt. But the honour which all feel as due to the soldier adds to the poignancy of the spectacle when men in uniform are seen in a drunken state. Before such drastic proposals as those recommended by the Senate Committee are accepted a whole-hearted effort should be made to cure the evil by an awakened public opinion. Men “shouting” for soldiers (who are nearly all in ill-health) do them the worst unkindness. The reputation of hotelkeepers as a class is involved. No licensee should permit any man, much less a soldier, to be supplied with liquor in excess. Hotelkeepers who profit by over-indulgence by soldiers should be driven out of business. The duty of searching out the discreditable examples rests with the trade itself. In their own interests, as well as for the higher motive, the associations which control the trade should see to it that unscrupulous hotelkeepers are not allowed to bring disgrace upon the whole body of licensees.

That article suggests that there should be an awakened public opinion upon this matter. I care not how we achieve our end, so long as it is achieved. If it be possible to achieve it by means of an awakened public opinion I shall be glad to see it secured in that way. In regard to the position of the Select Committee appointed by the Senate to inquire into this particular question, I shall be pleased indeed if the Government will tell us definitely whether or not it is to he provided with any further funds. Parliament is about to go into recess, and the members of the Committee naturally desire to know precisely where they stand.

I now wish to say a few words in reference to the post-office. Upon two occasions in this Chamber I have asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral to get a little information for me. Six or seven months have since elapsed, but that information has not been forthcoming.

Senator Russell:

– Does the honorable senator mean that he has received no reply ?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes. It appears that country telephones are charged double rates on Sundays.

Senator Russell:

– The honorable senator said that he had received no reply to his question.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I did get a reply to one of my questions. But my chief inquiry was as to the reason why long distance and country telephone lines are charged double rates on Sundays, whilst the metropolitan lines are not. I have not been able to obtain an answer to that question. I have observed that the Postal Department is now paying, and I am very glad that it is. I gather from my inquiries, however, that in reality it is the telephonic branch of the Department which is paying. The postal and telegraphic branches are not paying, but there is a substantial surplus from the telephonic branch. If that be so, it does seem strange that country telephones should be charged double rates on Sunday. Just now I expressed pleasure that the Postal Department is paying, and I may be permitted to add that it is a matter of especial pleasure to me to know that the telephonic branch is paying, because it fell to my lot to introduce the special telephonic rates which are responsible for the present surplus.

Senator de LARGIE:

– Who suggested those rates? I think that the Postal Commission recommended them.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I brought forward those rates before the Postal Commission’s report was laid upon the table of the other branch of the Legislature, and I had no knowledge of their recommendation. In this connexion I would like to read what the present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Webster) said of those rates. He stated -

I should not have done so had not the Minister definitely decided to introduce, on the 1st September, a system of telephone rates based on data that is absolutely unreliable, and hasnothing to recommend it.

He then went on to say -

I hope the Minister will stay his hand until the Commission’s report recommending certain rates has been submitted. If he does not, the blame for the mistake which will have been made, will lie on his shoulder, and not on mine.

Before concluding I desire to make a few observations regarding the manifesto which was recently published under the name of the Postmaster-General. But Senator Keating dealt with the matter so ably this afternoon that I shall make only the briefest reference to it. The Postmaster-General has affirmed that he intends to put an end to advancement by seniority. I think that we ought to know exactly what that means. I am one of those who believe that advancement should be by merit and not by seniority, but that other things being equal seniority should be the determining factor. From the statement made by the PostmasterGeneral, I infer that for some considerable time promotions have been made on account of seniority and not on account of merit.

Senator de LARGIE:

– That is contrary to the system that is provided for in our Public Service Act.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Decidedly! Whilst other things being equal, the senior man ought always to be given a preference, if promotions have been made solely on the ground of seniority, the late Public Service Commissioner and the Acting Public Service Commissioner have miserably failed in their duty. We have also been told that the PostmasterGeneral intends to do away with Public Service examination. We have a right to know whether this is the policy of the Government. We are told that there is to be a lecture hall, in which there will be class-rooms, a library, billiard tables, a gymnasium, and other means of instruction and recreation provided for public servants associated with the Post and Telegraph Department.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is there to be a bar?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No; I understand that the institute is to he run on the dry canteen principle. We are told that officers are to advance in the Post and Telegraph Department, not solely because of the work they perform in the Department, but also according to marks earned in the lecture hall, the library, and, possibly, the gymnasium and the billiard-room of the institute. Senator Keating urged that if these facilities were to be provided for Post Office officials in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, they should be provided for Hobart, Burnie, and similar .places. I go further, and say that they should also be provided at places like Mr Brown and Milparinka. Marks are to be given for work done at the institute. Are we to understand that proficiency in playing billiards is; under this proposal, to be a reason for advancement in the Department? If a good billiard player is to be advanced in the Department because of marks earned in the billiard-room of the institute in Melbourne, men in the back-blocks and at places like Milparinka and Mr Brown will be placed at a disadvantage, because there will not be the same facilities there for playing billiards. We are told, further, that if any one desires to go to the institute, and is prepared to give up twothirds of his own time for that purpose, he is to be allowed one-third of Government time. If a man wishes to become proficient at billiards, so long as he is prepared to give to the study of the game two-thirds of his own time, he is to be allowed one-third of the Government’s time.

So far from doing away, as is proposed, with the examination necessary to secure entrance to the Public Service, my voice and vote will be given to retain the examination test. Before the change of policy which is suggested can be given effect to, a Bill must be introduced for the purpose, and the matter can then be seriously discussed. I agree with Senator Keating that the examination is not an infallible test of capacity; but, taking everything into consideration, it is better than any other method that has been proposed for the selection of persons to be employed in the Public Service. To abolish the Public Service examination will only lead to favoritism in appointments to the Service. That was the experience of times past, when no entrance examination was provided for. One of the difficulties we have to contend with at present in the Public Service is caused by the fact that there are so many men in it who entered it before the examinations were instituted, and some of them are a drag upon the Service. Perhaps some of them are the drone3 whom Mr. Webster proposes to remove from the Service. I am in favour of “the entrance examination before appointment to the Public Service, because, amongst other things, it gives the poor man’s son the same chance as the rich man’s son to get into the Service, and it gives the person in the back-blocks the same chance as the residents of .the big cities.

Sitting suspended from 12.6 to 1.15 a.m. (Saturday).

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I do not feel justified, after the protracted sitting, in detaining the Senate for any length of time. But two or three things were said in the course of the debate that present sufficient justification for my making a few remarks at this juncture. The speech to which I particularly wish to direct attention was that delivered in the early portion of the sitting by Senator Gardiner..

– So will any country be ruined in which public affairs are run by dishonest methods of that kind.The answer to Senator O’Loghlin is that when I questioned Senator Gardiner as to whether he approved of what Mr. Ryan had done, whilst applauding the cheaper meat, the honorable senator would not identify himself with the method by which that cheap meat was obtained.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– What have the views of Senator Gardiner to do with me?

Senator MILLEN:

– Nothing; but in this case Senator Gardiner saw a little more clearly than Senator O’Loghlin, and he was not prepared to identify himself with the methods adopted by Mr. Ryan. Only one of two interpretations can be put upon what was done. Either Mr. Ryan was false in his trust to the Imperial Government, or he was guilty of an act of dishonest injustice to the producers of meat in Queensland.

– I shall come to that, and the people with whom we are asked to make them. Undoubtedly the possibility of a victory for the Central Powers makes the strongest appeal to us, not merely because of any attachment to the Imperial authority, the idea of which seems to appal some of my honorable friends opposite, but, if on no higher ground, that of our self-preservation here as an independent community. What does the second alternative, peace by negotiation, mean but to delay No. 3 ?

Peace by negotiation to-day with an unbeaten and unbroken Germany is tantamount to a victory for the Central Powers. It may not be the victory today, but can any one look forward with any degree of confidence to a renewal of the conflict if Germany is allowed time to recuperate, when we shall have no prospect or no great probability of having associated with us in the renewed struggle all the other nations of the civilized world as we have them to-day ? If this struggle terminates in an undefined way, can any one presume that, when the encounter is renewed, the twenty-six or twenty-seven Powers, which are now our Allies, will be again fighting with us? Is it not more likely that we should be left to fight those two Powers alone ? Peace by negotiation, therefore, is but a postponement of victory for the Central Powers.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Can you tell us how it can ever come without negotiation ?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Needham:

– Lloyd George congratulated them in the House of Commons.

Senator MILLEN:

– He spoke then in the light of the circumstances of the time. It is quite conceivable that even a gentleman of outstanding capacity, and with the many sources of information that are available to Lloyd George, seeing the Russian people arising in the first flush of the revolution, and, being, as he is, a Democrat, should have congratulated them upon their bid for liberty - especially “when they declared, as they did, that they were not only going to free themselves of their internal tyrants, but were determined to see the war through against the tyrant who rules over Germany. Lloyd George has not congratulated them upon later developments.. In the light of after events, and with the experience which comes with the lapse of time, we can see more clearly what has happened with Russia. This gospel of peace - preached, I firmly believe, by the paid agents <~f Germany - has nob merely left Russia as she is to-day - chaotic, helpless, and hopeless - but has resulted in that call for the increased effort and sacrifice that is being made by our men and their Allies on the fields of

France to-day. These are the results of peace by negotiation. Does any one opposite pretend that the Allied cause has been helped by this triumph of peace by negotiation? If there is anything in this doctrine we ought to be rejoicing today that Eussia obtained peace by negotiation ; but is any one traitor enough to this Empire to say that he can rejoice in the spectacle of Eussia impotent, knowing that because of her fall the German troops previously occupied there are today representing that spearhead, composed of German reserves, which is giving the Allies all they can do to hold their own where they stand to-night? This talk of. peace proved Germany’s greatest ally in Russia. It proved equally effective in essence, if not in extent, in Italy, and there was clear evidence that they were trying it also in France. I shall pursue the parallel no further ; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that Germany has more to gain than from a dozen victories on the battlefield if she can only show her people the spectacle of one portion of the British Empire saying, “ We, too, will follow the example of Russia, because the time has arrived to declare, with Senator Gardiner, that it is hopeless to obtain complete victory, and therefore, in order to avoid complete defeat, we are prepared to accept peace by negotiation.” A “declaration of that kind from a leading public man published in Germany would be worth to them many victories.

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

– Exactly what General Smuts said as a member of the War Council.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator MILLEN:

– Here is a short statement by a member of the Newcastle Council who seconded the motion -

We cannot remain affiliated with the Sydney Council. They are anti-British. We believe in recruiting. It would be far better if Judd and his followers were in Germany. We would then have a better chance of fighting them, and giving them their deserts in this war.

Senator MILLEN:

– No; not when I see men, with the right course before them, having the courage to follow it. I do not expect that any one of those unions which are withdrawing from the Labour party will be siding with my party politically. There is a higher thing than party to-day. I would shake hands with those men, and I am most willing to stand with them shoulder to shoulder in any effort we can jointly make to further that which we all have at heart, namely, the permanent security of the British Empire.

Let us consider this action on the part of the unionists. We know the tenacity with which Labour clings together. We know that solidarity has been the chief lever to the success of the Labour movement. Can we suppose that those unions, knowing that, have voluntarily surrendered the principle without excellent cause? If there is any justification for charges of disloyalty against the leaders of the Labour movement today, it is to be found in the attitude and actions of those unions whose loyalty is forcing them to break away. What is the nature of the resolutions which have gone over to Western Australia? What are the resolutions that have been carried from the eastern States to the Labour Conference in the West? They are peace resolutions, and consequent upon them these loyalist unions have declared, “Much as wc love our unions, we love our country more.

I wish to clear up one other point raised by Senator Gardiner, and I do so because he stated distinctly that I was wrong in an interjection which I made during the course of his remarks. He stated that at the Governor-General’s Conference the initial motion which was submitted had not been proceeded with because Mr. Hughes, owing to ill-health, was not present. I contradicted Senator Gardiner, and he challenged me to find in the record of that Conference evidence of any other reason. In looking through the reports of the gathering I came across the following on page 12, where Senator Gardiner said -

I could join with Senator Millen in carrying a resolution of that kind, but would that link up with us the hundreds of unionists who have been thrown out of employment, or the 82,000 unionists who have been de-registered because of the action of the National Governments in combination?

I hope, however, that we will close this Conference without any resolutions being carried, because in that way we shall demonstrate the unity and good feeling of delegates. Hard and fast motions drafted to meet the occasion will not, in my judgment, bring about unanimity.

My statement is - and that quotation proves it - that it was not the temporary absence . of Mr. Hughes for a day or two which prevented Senator Gardiner and his associates from adopting that motion. It was because Senator Gardiner and a number of those associated with him were afraid to go back to their unions and tell them they had subscribed to the motion. Mr. Ryan also objected to the motion. Although these delegates to the Conference found no fault with it, and although they all say that they would willingly have supported it, they did not do so. Mr. Ryan said -

But I am inclined to think that, perhaps, the experience in connexion with the two conscription issues has made the delegates inclined to scrutinize very closely the wording of a motion which superficially may appear innocuous, but which may subsequently prove, by the use that would be made of it, to be loaded.

No reference to Mr. Hughes’ absence through illness ! As a matter of fact it was never mentioned in the whole course of the debate as a reason for not adopting the motion. Mr. Scullin said -

If the Conference insists on putting this motion to a vote now, it will be placing in a false position men who have come here from all parts of Australia.

Let me direct attention to the motion, the adoption of which was going to place them in “ a false position.” It read as follows : -

That this meeting, recognising the urgent necessity for united effort in order to secure adequate reinforcements under the voluntary system of enlistment, resolves to consider impartially and with all good-will such proposals as may be made to enable Australia to respond to the appeal for men addressed to the Dominions by the Imperial Government

With whom was the adoption ot that motion going to place them in a false position? With loyalists who wanted to get recruits, or with that section of the Official Labour party which does not want to get them, and declines to do anything in the direction of getting them? Mr. Storey, the Leader of the Labour party in NewSouth Wales, said -

It is useless to talk of carrying a motion, that we uncompromisingly commit ourselves, to assist in recruiting work, because, when the Conference disperses, members generally will take no further notice of it.

He could only claim to be speaking for himself and his immediate associations. He had no right to speak for the whole of the Conference in using those wordsMr. Tudor said -

My suggestion is that we should not take avote upon anything.

I mention these things in order to showthat the statement made by Senator Gardiner, or the excuse that he offered for not voting for the motion - Mr. Hughes’ absence through ill-health - had not a vestige of truth in it. The fact is that Senator Gardiner and his friends, or many of them, were afraid that by adopting it they would be placing themselvesin a false position with those by whom they would be called to account on returning to their respective organizations. In order to show the attitude of these gentlemen, let me read the motion which was put up by them at the end of the proceed ings. Mr. Tudor moved -

That this Conference, meeting at a time of unparalleled emergency, resolves to make all possible efforts to avert defeat at the hands of German militarism, and to secure an honorable and lasting peace.

I ask honorable senators to note the words “to avert defeat.” It was a resolve, not to make an effort in order to secure victory, but merely to make an effort in order to avert defeat. Any peace society in the country could have adopted the same motion. The Conference wasnot called together for that purpose; it was called together for the purpose of devising means of getting men to carry on the war. Yet they put that motion forward. A more flabby, anaemic motionin a time of national crisis was never submitted anywhere, and I regret to say that when Mr. Hughes submitted a more vigorous proposal it was declined, and the Conference broke up with a resolution which was an admitted compromise in, order to secure unanimity. It reads as follows : -

That this Conference, at a time of unparalleled emergency, resolves to make all possible efforts to avert defeat at the hands of

German militarism, and urges the people of Australia to unite in a whole-hearted effort to secure the necessary reinforcements under the voluntary system.

It is mild enough, heaven knows to what extent ! But, although it had nothing in it to offend anybody, and everything in it to appeal to those who were loyal to their country and saw the danger confronting it, what reception did it receive from those who speak for Labour in New South Wales? It was defeated by a majority of three to two. A curious incident occurred in that debate in Sydney. Mr. Morby was at the Conference at Government House, and he carried the resolution into what was an apparently hostile meeting in Sydney, but he fought for it loyally, and the fight continued for several days, but neither Senator Gardiner nor Mr. Tudor uttered a word of encouragement to him or took any action to strengthen his hands. They left him alone to fight as best he could, fearful, apparently, of bringing upon themselves that hostility which they left unchecked to range round the man who had been their fellow colleague. There are a dozen ways in which a man who is in the public eye may be helped. Even if that Council had declined to receive either Mr. Tudor or Senator Gardiner, a letter in the press or a public statement by one of them would have had a welcome or a moral effect which would have told, if not at that gathering, at any rate with the community outside. Yet neither raised his voice nor stretched a hand to get through that council a motion to which they had subscribed in Melbourne. Evidently they were appalled by the hostile reception extended to it, and so they left Mr. Morby to stand alone.

In the course of his remarks, Senator Gardiner indulged in prophecy, or rather expressed the opinion that it would be impossible to look for victory over the Central Powers. I hope that the Senate will not be too prone to regard the honorable senator as a prophet in these matters, but lest it should be, I would like to place on record another prophecy in which he has indulged. Speaking at the Conference, he ventured into the arena of expert military opinion, and delivered himself of these words -

Surely, when the position is so serious, this Conference is one in which we can drop all pretence. In saying that the position is serious, I am not much concerned about the battlefield of France to-day, because it looks to me as if the Allies have made the cleverest move that they have made in the war to date, in drawing the Germans out of their concrete trenches, and I shall await with interest the developments during the next month.

Honorable senators will remember that while the Conference was sitting, the first of the three German drives had commenced, and our troops had fallen back about 25 or 30 miles. Is it to be assumed, as Senator Gardiner did, that the Allies had adroitly drawn back in order to draw the Germans on? If so, they have repeated the operation twice, and they have only to go on drawing back in orderto encourage the Germans to advance, and they will soon reach that position when there will bo no further land upon which to draw back. “Utterances of this kind steps to redeem their promises absolutely, no conception of the position we stand in to-day, else he would never have uttered such an opinion.

The honorable senator has asked what the Government have done to redeem the promises we made at that Conference. The New South Wales Government have taken steps to redeem their promises absolutely, and have called a special session of the State Parliament with a view to passing Bills to secure the re-registration of deregistered unions. The Commonwealth Government promised to remit all outstanding money penalties; those penalties have been remitted. We also promised to release from prison any person sentenced for offences arising out of and during the strike; that promise has been fulfilled. We also promised to review any war precautions regulations after Mr. Tudor had communicated his views to us as to which regulations he thought should be withdrawn. He has done so, and we have repealed some of them, and have communicated with him regarding the others. We promised that there should be a relaxation in connexion with the administration of the censorship; a supervising committee has been formed on which Labour journals are represented, and short of giving up the right, which we dare not give up, of exercising a censorship, we have honestly redeemed our promise in that regard.

Another matter discussed, and referred to by Senator Gardiner, was the matter of the Industrial Workers of the World prisoners. He and others, not only here but elsewhere, are continually repeating the statement that these men are detained in gaol after having served their sentences. That statement is not correct. The law requires that after the members of the Industrial Workers of the World have completed in gaol the term to which the Court has sentenced them, they shall be detained there until such time as there is an opportunity for deporting them. That is their sentence. They cannot be detained one moment after they have fulfilled that sentence. It is a perversion of the truth to say that these men are illegally detained in gaol. I listened to Senator Gardiner as I have listened ‘o others pouring out a flood of sympathy for members of the Industrial Workers of the World organization. My sympathy goes out, not to them, but to those who would have been their victims had they been allowed to carry through their programme. I have not forgotten that the members of this association tried to burn down places in Sydney in the middle of the day when they were crowded with women and children.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Those are not the men for whom we are pleading.

Senator MILLEN:

-r-It is the members of that association for which the honorable senator and members of his orgazation are stumping the country to-day, seeking to raise an utterly false sympathy for them. I remember that two members of the Industrial Workers of the World, in cold blood, murdered a policeman. He was sitting at his office desk when they sneaked up in the dark, and fired at him through the open window. There was a petition got up to secure the reprieve of those men, who have met a very wellmerited punishment, but there was no movement to render succour to the relatives of the murdered man. When these beasts in human form are walking through our streets it is a perversion of what sympathy really is to talk about having sympathy for them.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Those are not the cases brought under the Minister’s notice.

Senator MILLEN:

– These men are members of the same organization, which has been formed for that purpose. The Act declares that those who join it shall suffer penalties, and unless one is a sympathizer with them he should be offering congratulations to the country on having a Government in power which, in spite of all the pressure from the other side, is determined to rid the country of these pests.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Specific cases were submitted to the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government have gone into all the specific cases submitted, and where they thought leniency might be extended they have extended it. Where they thought it should not be extended it has not been shown, and Ministers are not disposed to yield to a popular cry and release men whom it believes to be dangerous. If I have detained honorable senators more than a reasonable time I ask them to remember that, more or less imperfectly, I have attempted to deal with those things which are of vital importance at the present moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill he now read a second time.

– Neither the time nor the place is opportune for that question.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Will the Government inform the people as to what is their policy in connexion with this matter? Surely, before we adjourn, the

Ministry can announce their intentions in. that regard.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule -

Price-Fixing : Meat - Queensland State Butcheries - Defence Department : Temporary Clerks and Overtime. Improper Practices in Ordnance Stores.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– On the vote for the Prime Minister’s Department perhaps I shall be in order in asking the Government what are their intentions in respect of the fixation of the prices of meat? I listened attentively to the very fine address upon war which has just been delivered by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Millen). I also listened to his statement concerning Mr. Ryan and the meat shops in Queensland. As Mr. Ryan is not here, I propose to take this opportunity of quoting from an interview given by that gentleman to a press representative when passing through Melbourne on his way to Western Australia on Thursday last. That interview reads -

In Queensland themeat profiteer does not exist.

Melbourne, 28.5.18.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 9th May relative to the deductions being made from the salaries of temporary clerks on account of the overpayment of overtime, I am directed to inform you that the Minister is unable to approve of the request of the union to waive these refunds. It is considered that if by an interpretation of an award by the Court it had been found that the Department had underpaid temporary clerks, there is no question but that the union would have claimed that retrospective action should have been taken.

Yours faithfully,

Trumble, Secretary.

That is quite right so far as it goes. But there is another side to this question. I ask the Minister (Senator Pearce) whether it is a fact that the Defence Department is deducting overtime paid to the temporary clerks under the pretext that, had the ruling given by Mr. Justice Powers as to the definition of hours been against the Department, the clerks would have claimed retrospective pay? I also ask him how the Department can rule that the clerks should refund the amounts paid, seeing that the Postmaster-General’s Department, after the interpretation Board had given a definition of holidays, refused to make the award retrospective when it would have benefited the members of that association ? Seeing that the amount involved is a small one, I ask the Minister not to press these temporary clerks for any further refunds.

Senator BOLTON:
VICTORIA · NAT

-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [2.33 a.m.]. - On a previous occasion I referred to certain improper practices in the Ordnance Branch of this Department. The statements which I then made were made in good faith, on undeniable evidence in my possession - evidence which, at the request of the Minister, I subsequently supplied him with. I ask the honorable gentleman whether he has taken any action in regard to the improper practices which I mentioned ?

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– Dealing, first, with the question raised by Senator Needham, the facts of the case are as follow: - The temporary clerks, to whom reference has been made, are members of the Clerks Union, and that union had a case before the Arbitration Court. The award of that Court governed the clerks who are employed in the Defence Department. After the award had been given, a certain interpretation was placed upon the overtime clause contained in it, both by the clerks themselves and also by officials. Upon examination, however, it was found that the first interpretation was faulty, and the Department consequently proceeded to give effect to the correct interpretation. However, the question was the subject oft negotiation, and eventually the Court itself was asked to interpret the award which had been given in regard to overtime. It brought in an interpretation which clearly indicated that the Department had been paying more than it was expected to pay under the award. The Court had fixed the date from which the award was to operate. Prom that period onwards, the clerks had been paid more than they were entitled to. The Department, therefore - quite rightly, in my opinion - deducted the excess which it had paid over the amount which the Court declared by’ its interpretation that it had awarded. In other words, we honoured the award of the Court. Nobody can question our action in that connexion.

Senator Needham:

– Then why not pay the letter-carriers the amount that is due to them retrospectively ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not know anything about that case. I am only familiar with this case. That is a. principle which unionists have always insisted upon. If an employer had, owing to an incorrect interpretation of the award, paid less than the Court intended, and the Court, on being appealed to, had declared that interpretation incorrect. it has always ordered the employer to make up the deficiency from the date on which the award became operative. That is quite right; but “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” The Department has paid the amount due, according to the interpretation placed by the Court upon the award, from the date on which the award came into operation.

In regard to the Ordnance Stores, Senator Bolton was good enough to inform me of his intention to mention the subject, and I have been able to consult the file. When he referred to the matter in this chamber on a previous occasion, I promised to make inquiries. I did so, and I find that it has been the subject of both a departmental Board of Inquiry and a prosecution. There had been peculations in the Ordnance Stores, and some slackness; and because of the slackness an officer named G. B. Pearce was dismissed. There was a difference of opinion between the Board of Inquiry and the QuartermasterGeneral, who is the head of the Ordnance Branch, and as. I had not the time to go into these matters in detail, I decided to refer the subject to an independent tribunal, the Business Board, which, under the Minister, will in future control the Ordnance Stores. I drew attention to what I considered the main points of the report of the Court of Inquiry regarding the dismissal of G. B. Pearce, which in its findings set out - “ 1, (a) a most unsatisfactory condition of affairs re control of stores; (b) allegations that my directions re preference to returned soldiers and non-retention of eligibles where returned soldiers can replace them are not being carried out; and, 2, the- report by the Quartermaster-General contesting and minimizing the report of the Court of Inquiry.” I added, “ As I am unable to give the necessary time to go into the details of this matter, and as the Business Board is now constituted, I refer the matter to them for further inquiry and recommendation.” I have received the result of that inquiry, as follows : -

Re G. B. Pearce Court of Inquiry.

The Honorable the Minister.

The Board has perused the evidence taken by the Board of Inquiry in connexion with the dismissal of George Benjamin Pearce. Without going into all the details connected with this unsatisfactory business, the Board is satisfied

that the dismissal of this man was justified;
that the inquiry has further disclosed the unsatisfactory condition of affairs in connexion with the running of the Ordnance Stores,

In connexion with this matter, the Board begs to inform the Minister that it has already under consideration the question of appointment of a senior ordinance officer, the position now being filled by Mr. Nash, who is simply acting until a proper senior ordinance officer is appointed, and there is not much hope of a better condition of affairs until the appointment is made.

A recommendation as to the appointment will be made during the next few days.

As regards the peculations, I personally went through the file, and I found that a certain man was prosecuted in the Police Court, and . was committed for trial. Senator Bolton made a mistake when on a previous occasion he said that no witnesses were called for the prosecution. I have shown him that at least half-a-dozen witnesses were called for the prosecution. This person was tried in the Supreme Court, before a Judge and jury, and, after a retirement of less than five minutes, the jury returned with a verdict of “ Not guilty.” Of course, the man was discharged, and he has since gone to the Front. He has had a trial, and the Court has dismissed the case. I must assume that the man was innocent, and it does not seem possible to follow the matter any further; but I hope that the steps which the Business Board is recommending will bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs in the Ordnance Stores in Victoria.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The item for the “ InterState Commission,” in the Department of Trade and Customs, affords an opportunity for me to reply to the statement made by the Minister regarding the State butcher shops in Queensland. In justice to Mr. Ryan, the great Premier of that great State, I will read to the Senate an interview which he gave to the press when passing through Melbourne a few days ago. This is the report in the Age of the 13th of June-

Statement by Mr. Ryan.

In Queensland the meat profiteer does not exist. The Ryan Government has effectually checked exploitation in the meat business by growing stock and supplying meat direct to the consumers from its own butcher shops.

Mr. Ryan, the Queensland Premier, passed through Melbourne yesterday on his way to the Labour Conferencee, to be opened in Perth on Monday next. In the course of a statement on the meat question, he said his Government had effectively dealt with the subject of supplying the people with meat at fair and reasonable prices. It had established State cattle stations, so that it could supply requirements at the cost of production, plus the cost of distribution. In the meantime it had arranged with the meat export companies to supply the State butcher shops with 7,000 tons of meat a year. They do this, not on the export parity, as is now proposed here, but actually at a price slightly below the export price. The Government supplied about 12,000 families through 23 shops. The purpose of the establishment of retail shops was to supply meat at reasonable prices, and incidentally to control the prices charged by private butchers. This action of the Government indirectly had an influence upon the price of stock. When the Government discovered that the meat -market was soaring unduly high it found it advantageous to bring in a number of fat cattle from the State stations. Thus the. price of fat cattle was regulated. He had long advocated some system of fixing the price of cattle “ on the hoof “ to counteract the abnormal prices to which meat had risen during the war period. He thought that a practicable scheme could be worked out whereby it could be done. But it could only be done by a Government that was determined to go to the full extent to enforce its policy. It must not be done in any half-hearted, hesitating or vacillating way. It must be done by a Government that would not bend the knee, that would carry out its duty of governing. He was not inclined to think that there was so much real business intention in the pronouncement of the Commonwealth Government that it would arrange for fixing the price of meat. At all events, by the intimations that had been given up to the present, there had been too much delay. When the Inter-State Commission gave its first report the matter was staved off by referring the report back to the Commission. Now that the Commission had presented its second report, he noticed that “ time would be required in order to formulate the scheme.” It was essential that action should be prompt. The effect of weakness on the part of the Government at this juncture would be twofold. It would play right intO the hands of the great exploiters. It would send down the price of stock put into the market by small holders, give a splendid opportunity for the speculator to step in, and leave the consumer paying the same prices for his chops and steak as before. The strong holder probably would hold his cattle, and this would tend not towards cheapening meat, but towards creating a meat famine. If he (Mr. Ryan) were a speculator, which he was not, and he found .that a weak Government was dabbling with the question, he should be inclined to step in and buy cattle at a juncture when the small holders were timid. For example, he noticed by the press that sheep had fallen as much as 5s. and cattle as much as £3 a head. Would any consumer in Melbourne find his meat bill reduced in any respect as a consequence of that fall? He thought not.

When you, Mr. Chairman, were addressing yourself .to this question this afternoon, you advocated that the Commonwealth Government should establish cattle stations in the Northern Territory. That is a very excellent suggestion, and, for once, you and I are in agreement. But if it is a good thing for the Commonwealth Government to establish cattle stations in the Northern Territory, is it not a good thing that the Queensland Government should control cattle stations in that State, and establish butcher shops in which they are able to supply meat to the consumer at a lower price than rules in any other part of the Commonwealth?

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 6081

APPROPRIATION BILL 1917-18

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill to appropriate £17,416,635 for the service of the year ending 30th June, 1918. The whole of this amount with the exception of £259,113 has already been approved of by the Senate in the various Supply Bills that have been submitted to it from time to time.

Of. the total amount, £12,768,484 is required for ordinary services, and £4,648,151 for war services. The amount for war services is required mainly for the repatriation of soldiers and war pensions.

Earlier in the year, Estimates as laid on the table of the Senate showed that the anticipated expenditure from revenue would amount to £37,283,832. This amount includes the sum for which appropriation is now sought, and also amounts for new works and amounts payable under special and permanent appropriation.

The receipts set down for the financial year amount to £26,208,060. To that amount has to be added £2,077,427, the surplus brought from the previous year, making a total of £28,285,487.

The expenditure out ‘ of revenue amounts to £20,153,347, for the ordinary services of the year, and war expenditure out of revenue amounts to £8,160,404, or a total of £28,313,751.

The expenditure shown is the expenditure for the full year, but the Estimates of revenue shown ‘ represent only the actual revenue received for eleven months of the year. This leaves a deficit of £28,264. To provide for this, an amount of £30,000 was borrowed from the Australian Notes Fund. Parliamentary authority exists for this course.

The balance of £2,077,427 brought forward to theyear 1917-18 is what remains of the surplus of 1915-16. In 1916-17 the revenue amounted to £34,035,173, and the expenditure was £34,932,996, resulting in a deficit of £897,823 on the transactions of the year. That deficit was eliminated by drawing on the surplus of the previous year, and after the amount necessary for that purpose had been drawn, there still remained £2,077,427, which, as previously indicated, was brought into the revenue of this year.

The total receipts up to the 31st May, eleven months of the financial year, were £28,285,487. The total estimated receipts for the full twelve months amounted to £37,283,832. This would appear to represent a disproportionate deficit, seeing that there is onlyone month of the year to include. It happens, however, that in that month the receipts from taxation are very much heavier than the average monthly receipts for the, year, and the Treasury officials estimate that something like £3,000,000 will be received from . directtaxation in the present month. Other sources of revenue are also expected to be above the monthly average. It seems also reasonably certain that there will be a considerable saving on the Budget estimate of expenditure for the financial year, and the operations of the year should result in a surplus of, approximately, £750,000 after repaying the amount of £30,000 borrowed from the Australian Notes Fund to meet the temporary deficit.

I have briefly outlined the position in connexion with this Bill, and whilst I in no way suggest that there should be” silence on the part of honorable senators, I again remind them they have practically approved of the expenditure covered by this measure in the various Supply Bills that have from time to time been presented here. In the circumstances, I feel that I am not indulging in a vain hope if I anticipate that the measure will have a smooth and speedy passage in this chamber.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– In seconding the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I desire to redeem a promise which the Government made some time ago to inform Parliament in regard to the site selected for the Arsenal when the Estimates came to be dealt with.

The necessity for an Arsenal was discussed by the Senate in connexion with the Loan Act, as a result of which provision was made by Parliament for its establishment. The question of site, however, was reserved for further consideration by the Government, and it has now arrived at the conclusion that the best place for the purpose is at Tuggeranong, in Federal Territory.

Before this . decision was reached the Government decided to obtain the opinion of the best authorities available in Australia, and also of the experts of the British Ministry of Munitions. A Committee was appointed to consider various sites, including -

Canberra,

Lithgow,

Albury,

Lyndhurst,

Bathurst, and at a later date -

Tumut,

Cootamundra,

Mudgee,

Cadi a, near Orange, were added to the list.

The Committee, consisting of -

Major-General J. G. Legge, as military expert;

Mr. N. K. S. Brodribb, manager, Government Cordite Factory, as explosives expert;

Mr. G. D. Delprat, general manager, Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, whose leading position in the industrial manufacturing world is well known to honorable members ;

Mr. King Salter, general manager of the Commonwealth Dockyard, as mechanical engineer;

Mr. B. T. McKay, manager of Walkers Limited, engineers, Maryborough, Queensland;

Colonel R. T. Owen, DirectorGeneral of Works; and

Mr. T. H. Woodroffe, Chief Mechanical Engineer, Victorian Railways, as railways expert, visited the various sites, and considered the matter from every aspect, particularly in regard to-

safety in relation to aerial and general attack;
water supply;
centrality in regard to rail connexions ;
climate;
proximity to raw materials; and unanimously decided to recommend the site known as Tuggeranong, near Canberra, as the one most suitable for the Arsenal.

The result of the reference to the Imperial authorities was summarized in the following recommendations of a meeting of the Council of the Ministry of Munitions : -

War involves the entire industrial organization of a country, and, therefore, war production must follow peace production, and must replace peace industries.
In time of peace, appropriate manufacturers should be trained in the manufacture of munitions by the distribution of regular small orders for munitions. In this way, and in this way alone, can production be rapidly and readily extended on the outbreak of war.
A central Arsenal is necessary. It should not be primarily productive, but only produce in suffificient quantities to develop and prove new patterns and designs, and generally improve the standard of munitions, and to train men technically for distribution through the country in time of war.

The members of the Council discussed Tuggeranong as a site, and agreed that it would be suitable so long as the labour was provided for. The question of labour supply and proximity to an existing town was very fully considered by the Australian Committee, and provision for supplying it forms part of the Government programme. As the highest authorities agree that the Government’s proposals are sound, and that the Tuggeranong site is in every way suitable for the purposes of an Arsenal, the Government has decided to establish it there, and to proceed with the work at the earliest possible moment. The scheme contemplates manufacture of all classes of munitions required by a field army, a large proportion of which, up to now, has been imported, and it is proposed, in the first instance, to take in hand the manufacture of machine guns and ammunition for field guns. It is probable that aeroplanes will also be amongst the first munitions to be taken up. The manufacture of field artillery ammunition includes brass cartridge cases, fuses, and high explosive. Other branches will follow, such as extensions of the Small Arms Factory, a gun factory, including gun carriages and vehicles, and light howitzers; and it is also intended ultimately that the Commonwealth should manufacture its own small-arm ammunition, in addition to the supplies obtained from a private company manufacturing ammunition in Melbourne.

An interesting development in connexion with the investigations into the arsenal proposal has transpired in regard to the decision of the Government to manufacture a large proportion of the machinery and tools required for arsenal purposes. Almost the whole of such articles has been imported in the past, and it is expected that the establishment of this industry will result in Australia rendering itself independent of outside supplies of metal-working machinery for the future. The Department is confirmed in its favorable anticipations regarding this undertaking by the success which it has achieved in connexion with experimental manufacture of machinery in some of its factories, in one instance, at least, the cost of duplicating a machine imported before the war being £30 less than the imported article, after allowing for all charges. Some commercial establishments have also manufactured small lots of machine tools, and it has been proved that there is no reason whatever why the larger undertaking should not he successful.

Complementary to the establishment of the Arsenal is the proposal of the Government to organize the engineering and manufacturing industries of Australia for the production of munitions in time of war. Details . of this have yet to be elaborated, but in due course proposals will be made to the commercial bodies interested, and it is hoped that a workable scheme will be drawn up.

The Arsenal will primarily be a form of insurance against war, and a training ground for the people of Australia, upon whom, in time of war, the chief burden of producing munitions will fall. It is not expected that it will ever be what might be called a paying concern, but it is the intention of the Government to secure the best staff available for its management, and there is reason to believe, from the past experience of the men already engaged to control it, that it will be managed in the most economical manner possible, having due regard to the purpose for which it was created. The qualifications of Mr. A. E. Leighton, General Manager, are already known to honorable members, and the services of Professor A. J. Gibson, of the University of Brisbane, have been secured to be Acting Chief Engineer of the Arsenal. The construction of the works will be carried out under the direction of Colonel P. T. Owen, DirectorGeneral of Works, and it is proposed to form committees, composed of leading experts in the business world, to act in an advisory capacity.

Special attention will be devoted to the Arsenal town. It is intended that this should be laid out on the most modern principles, and every facility provided for insuring the contentment of the workers, because it is realized that best results in any industry are only to be obtained from employees satisfied with their conditions. The Government has under consideration the appointment of an advisory committee, including well known town planners, to assist it in this respect. As indicated, the whole matter has received long and earnest consideration by the Government. Every possible authority has been consulted, and, as the international situation daily becomes more menacing, the Government is of opinion that there should be an immediate commencement with the work, and it proposes to commence the preliminary works forthwith.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Surely it is not the intention of the Government to dispose of this measure at ten minutes past 3 o’clock in the morning?

Senator Millen:

– We have already passed practically the whole of these amounts.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We have not passed them all yet. There are fifteen days of the financial year yet to come. The Government bring down the Estimates at” 3 o’clock on the morning of the 15th June for the year ending on the 30th June. I think we might very well adjourn until a later hour to-day, or until Monday or Tuesday next, when we should be able to come back fresh and vigorous to consider the different items in this Bill. We are asked to dispose, in a few moments, of a Bill providing for an expenditure of over £70,000,000.

Senator Bakhap:

– But with the exception of a few pounds the whole of this money has already been expended.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Even in the Mother of Parliaments, whose practice we follow, honorable members would not be asked to dispose of a Bill, providing for such a gigantic expenditure, in a few minutes. In the remaining fifteen days of the financial year to which it relates we should be able to find out whether this money has been rightly or wrongly expended. If the Government are really serious in their request that we should deal with this Bill in a few minutes, I can do no more than register my protest.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [3.12 a.m.]. - .Some honorable senators seem to view as a joke the request that further time should be given for the consideration of this measure. I do not. We should have from the Leader of the Government in the Senate an assurance that if we agree to the second reading of this Bill he will consent to progress being reported as soon as we go into Committee. This Bill has surely been placed in our hands in order that we may study it, and yet we are asked to dispose of it in a few minutes.

Senator Millen:

– If -we adjourn now will the honorable senator promise me that he will study it?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN We have already foregone our nights to discuss a number of questions on the motion for the first reading of the Bill.

Senator Millen:

– But honorable senators availed themselves of the opportunity to do so when the Supply Bill, of which we have just disposed, was before us.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests.

page 6085

SPECIAL. ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 2 p.m. this day (Saturday).

Senate adjournment at 3.25 a.m. (Saturday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 June 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19180614_senate_7_85/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate14 June 1918

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

RECRUITING CONFERENCE

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

PAPERS

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1918-19

Senator BAKHAP:Tasmania

Senator de Largie:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator GUY:TASMANIA · ALP

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Pratten:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Pearce:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Pearce:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Millen:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Colonel Rowell:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Guy:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Keating:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Guy:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Maughan:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Guy:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Mcdougall:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Mcdougall:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Senior:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Guy:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Millen:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senate
14 June 1918

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917